skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I will study for any interview, I do not have a problem with that. During the interview when they asked me about BSTs, although I never used them in my life, I was still able to write some code using the instructions given by the interviewer. I can imagine that if I studied for them I would have done just fine.

When the interview was setup I was told it was going to be about gdb/valgrind. When the interview took place, BSTs were involved, I answered the basic stuff such traversing it, finding the min/max, some other functions, but I was not able to answer some tricky questions later towards the end.
A $15 Lyft Coupon Won't Fix Sexual Harassment
You could mostly just get rid of Mitch Mconnel and Trump and most of the really bad stuff of late would be resolved.
You could make a custom view that filters that stuff. Maybe logs it so you can spend some time scanning through any that might be interesting to you. Most of the time, though, you just see the non-news links.
I have not taken that position. To misrepresent the views of others to make your argument easier is very patronizing.

My post was about notoriety not belief. Many things, trends and personalities are created by the media, whether you believe what they say or not. Flat earth conspiracies would never have been repeated by NBA players if not because of Youtube's recommendation algorithm.
> If courts are too overloaded, then we need more courts or we need to change the laws/processes that overload them.

This is certainly true, but many parties are mutually benefited by resolving some disputes via a neutral arbiter rather than the courts. It's just another example of where private companies can be more efficient than legal bodies.

There are just more inherent costs in a legal court of law.
Yes, and no. If you send a message to someone you've most recently conversed with on iMessage, it will be blue. But if iMessage can't deliver the message, it will fall back to using text messages. I believe on the next attempt, the button will be green, but I don't have a way to test that right now.
They aren't really required to work [without pay]. They're allowed to quit.

They're just required to work [without being paid immediately] if they want to keep the job, with the promise that they'll be paid later.

Edit: Except for the Coast Guard, for whom the current situation really sucks.
Rust does this as a core idiom. I don’t think this will work.

Edit wrt edit in parent: all three of these claims apply to Rust.
Nah. The vast majority will blame the party they dislike. A few in the middle may switch which party they dislike for a while.
I was starting to work on my own project just this week to deal with the exact same issues and use cases. Excited to check this out and see how it evolves!

This could absolutely be my own misunderstanding, but you mention that it's explicitly not an ORM, but reading through the docs, it seems like the collections and querying aspects of this project are just that. It actually seems like most of what this project's scope seems to be is to be used as an ORM (which I personally am fine with). Can you elaborate on that at all?
Same reason you’d want to understand the intent behind the design of a software system before you modify it. Afterwards, though, you still go ahead and modify it to meet new requirements.

Anyway, extending the franchise doesn’t really have anything to do with the prominence of the federal government, whereas the increasing power of corporations does.
How do you account for people inflating or lying about their work on their CV?

I think those sites you mentioned only get you to the point of actually having your skills vetted. It's not a solution to the proposed problem of interviewing.
> These patents seem to be a countermeasure against patent trolls.

Nope. Prior art is the only protection against patent trolls. Patents are no protection at all against trolls because patent trolls are unlikely to infringe any of your patents, due to their sole business being patent litigation.

There are two reasons for Apple to get these patents: defensive and offensive patent litigation against other companies in the industry. Apple has a history of using offensive patent litigation, going so far as using it as a weapon to keep industry wages low. https://www.cnet.com/news/steve-jobs-threatened-palm-with-pa...
End-to-end encryption is about decomposing trusted parties and compartmentalizing untrusted infrastructure. There are meaningful differences between end-to-end encryption and server-side encryption. These differences are entirely orthogonal to the question of whether or not you can verify the client or the server.

This is what I was getting at in my other comment. If you’re going to reject end-to-end encryption because you can’t verify the client, you’re looking at a very different set of criteria to establish the confidentiality and authenticity assurances you want. In particular, you are at a point where it’s difficult to establish a secure channel unless you’re using a fully decentralized, federated protocol with a server you stood up yourself.
It also prevents any fully independent implementation of a compatible Swift since it wouldn't be from the Apache-licensed source.
Given that this shutdown has already set an all-time duration record, that's probably not fair to say.
You can do 30 miles all electric in a new Prius (with a solar panel on roof). If you drive very little renting a car could make more sense.
It's worth noting that this blog post appeared less than 24 hours after BuzzFeed News posted an article explicitly highlighting the conspiracy theories in the recommended section: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/carolineodonovan/down-y...

I helped contribute to that article, feel free to ask any questions!
Huh? Americans needing healthcare are walking into Mexico? And outside the standard ports of exit/entry?
> Notice that Signal doesn't do anything that much different; Signal does the key exchange and unless you verify each user's key offline, you have to trust it.

Let's not forget Signal is FOSS and has reproducible builds (https://signal.org/blog/reproducible-android/). This makes it far easier to trust its verification code.
If the shutdown keeps going to an extended period of time, it will be interesting to see the long term effects of having a large amount of entrenched bureaucrats suddenly removed and replaced by new ones.

I think that in the future if this keeps going there will probably be noticeable policy differences and shifts in the bureaucracy after this. Definitely a point of history that people should look to for ripple effects later down the line.
For me Facebook messenger is the only part that matters. If I don’t know you enough to speak with you on there I will never see your posts, since I very rarely go on the main site. So political opinions from my grandma don’t really enter into my usage
In the US, I could see that being weaponized. One side doesn't like the results of the last election, so they force an impasse to get a new one. (In particular, I could see the Democrats trying this after the election of 2016. Perhaps the Republicans after 2018, though I think their motivation would be less strong.)

And in the US, I could see that tactic succeeding, unless the voters were willing to punish gaming the system that way. I see no evidence that US voters are responsible enough to do so, however.
I should have phrased it better. I am not talking about an arbitration case itself, but the decision to use arbitration as the means for settling disputes. If company decides to use arbitration in 2018, then in 2020, they are not allowed to change their mind to not use arbitration. Deciding to use arbitration locks the company in. Thus, the various arbitration providers don't have any concern that if their decisions are not friendly to the company the company will stop using their services.
Then stop asking these questions. During an interview you should be determining if a candidate is a good fit for the job they're going to have, talk to them to suss out their fit with the existing team and maybe bring up a few issues you recently hit in your day to day work (or that were recently hit by people doing what this hire will be doing). A beautiful hidden point in this, assuming this task wasn't solved entirely in isolation by one person then discussing what the company did after hearing their thoughts will demonstrate the sort of communication levels the candidate could expect if they accepted the position.

By asking rote questions like this you're much more likely to decrease your chances of getting people who are good team builders as the lack of a focus on team cohesion will turn a lot of people off.
So it's almost HN cliche to complain about these sorts of questions, and that's a fairly earned failure, but I just want to reiterate that these sorts of questions are one or two orders of magnitude more meaningful than the nebulous questions you sometimes see, "estimate how many auto mechanics serve Portland" or "I shrink you to the size of a pea and throw you in a blender, how will you survive?" or the like.

At the core, what you should be doing if you want to hire properly, is to take a break approximately 10-15 minutes into the interview. Go get a bottle of water or something. During the next 1-5 minutes, jot down on a piece of paper your initial impressions of the candidate, your suspicions and biases.

Some studies show that based on folks viewing the first five minutes of an interview, they can usually predict the outcome. One can interpret that in several ways, but the more cynical is to just say that most interviews are exercises in confirmation bias: you get some suspicion of the candidate, you spend the rest of the interview looking for evidence of your suspicions so you can feel good about your eventual predetermined decision.

If you want to do better, it's very simple: do what a scientist does and flip this on its head. Write down your suspicions and then try to disprove them. You think that this person is too egocentric for your company? Then ask them to talk about how they have worked with others, ask what they'd do if a coworker was struggling with a personal issue, try to gather evidence that they can actually be compassionate and empathic. You think that this person cannot program their way out of a bag? Throw them a softball programming question like FizzBuzz. You think that they have encyclopedic knowledge of algorithms? OK, then ask them to implement a Dijkstra's algorithm and if they don't know what that is, a breadth-first traversal.

What people are really sick of is that people use these tools as crystal balls into their own psyche: You as an interviewer tend towards "he got QuickSort wrong!" if you subjectively didn't want him in your company, "she got QuickSort almost right, except for some finagling around the pivot!" if you subjectively did want her. What's missing is deliberateness: choose what you want to know deliberately, choose the question deliberately to satisfy some goal: either saying "yeah my hunch was wrong about that, they did pretty well" or else "no, I really tried to give them every opportunity to show me that they can code and even trying to give them the benefit of the doubt I am still unconvinced."
Scan-free Vulnerability Management with osquery
Apache James is a great smtp and imap server that has a lot of really great features, like distributed storage in cassandra and some support for jmap.
And against human players up to Masters 3 or so :) When you're still using the all-army hotkey, defending with a small and precise group isn't happening.
It does make a difference, because if the APM spike is during a head-on interaction with the human then it provides a competitive advantage, if it's randomly during another part of the match, then it doesn't provide a competitive advantage.

Where did they say the spike was during a battle?
Perhaps Jobs didn't appreciate the full extent to which their product would transform humanity, but that is not necessarily the same thing as him not wanting, or opposing, us using our iPhones as much as we do.

I understand the desire for a backlash on smartphones, but their ubiquity is simply a demonstration of just how much utility we derive from them.
I'd like to refute the point about brakes. A lot of it is based on the driver, not just the vehicle.

I've driven a manual all my life. I don't really enjoy automatics, and I've got to the point now where I've pretty much perfected rev matching and heel and toe so I can engine brake most of the time with minimal wear on my clutch and shock to my drive train.

To be perfectly honest, I don't think I wear my brakes any faster than if I drove an electric car. I'd love to do an experiment to see if this was the case, it sounds like as lot of fun!

However, I concede that most drivers are nowhere near as interested in the technicalities of driving and teaching learner drivers to rev match and heel and toe is probably too complex at that stage in their driving careers.
The Vice President’s Men
Congrats, Jeremy and crew!
One strategy behind patenting open sourced inventions is to protect the users of the open source product.
The end game seems to be moving more and more toward armed conflict between China and the US. I honestly don’t see both societies continuing their current trajectories without running headlong into each other. Perhaps it will just be another cold war and we’ll see who’s economic system blinks first.
They did not. IRS jobs are not "essential" within the meaning of the rules requiring certain governmental personnel to work during shutdowns.

In a nutshell and highly simplified, but "essential" in the shutdown context means national security and transportation. It doesn't include functions that are nice to have, like quick processing of refunds.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery

Wage slavery is a very old term. Please do your research before making such bold statements.
Government employees are paid much MUCH less than their counterparts. The tacit agreement is that they get paid less but have more stability.

Any NASA Aerospace engineer will make more at Lockheed Martin or Northrop Grumman. Its just the facts. Missiles and Weapons make more money than generic US Space research, even if one is more fundamentally important to the advancement of our civilization. Any IRS Tax-expert will make more money as an Corporate Accountant (who are paid to avoid taxes, instead of applying them fairly across the country).
Only the legislative branch has enough power to unilaterally shut the gov't. The executive can make them work for it, but ultimately congress holds all the cards.

The executive makes a budget, but it's just advisory. Officially the House is the source of the budget, which gets passed by the senate, then signed by the president. But as a practical matter there's much negotiation before and during the whole process, of course.
Just because there might be bloggers out there reading this looking to improve things - SHOW ARTICLE PUBLICATION DATES! This is especially critical for tech blogs.
Yeah. They analogy makes no sense. They can print however much money they choose to. There's no "profit" for government.
It's one banana, Michael, what could it cost? Ten dollars?
You're drawing the wrong conclusions. Christianity teaches the duties of people towards others, including people are slaves. It doesn't talk about rights, because it's smart enough to understand you can't have a right to a finite resource.

Christianity always only talks about what you need to give, and never says anything about what you need to get, including anything you get from God, which is always undeserved and only happens through His mercy and generosity.

This is even acknowledged obliquely when Christ states that we will always have the poor. By saying that we can't serve God and Mammon, He's saying that we cannot make money for money's sake, but must use it justly in the service of God.
I'm not sure there's a strong connection with Jobs' desire to limit native code execution and social good will. It's probably worth pointing out that reportedly, Jobs himself kept iOS devices away from his own children because he considered them "too addictive."

Apple's original position on third party apps was that they deserved on the web, in what would eventually become known as "progressive web app" form. That position was abandoned not just because it was a mediocre user experience, but also, it actually prevented device lock-in, which is something Jobs obviously craved.

You can argue that some apps are time-sucks, or bad for your overall well-being, and I'll be right there with you. But that has relatively little to do with whether they're shitty web apps or native code apps.

And also, the fact that smartphones do way more than originally imagined is a great thing. In most parts of the world, I can pull out my phone, tap a few characters, and a car will magically pull up where I am and take me wherever I need to go. Or bring me food. I can translate anything to anything. I know the second a flight is delayed, which lets me be more present in life. My life is assuredly better because my smartphone is turing-complete and runs third party software.
The first time I heard of Canada Goose was when I saw the Top Gear trio make their way to the North Pole in that red Toyota. Not long after I started noticing them more and more, and then recently they exploded. I wonder how much the Top Gear guys had to do with getting the ball rolling.
That's a very sane approach, it's one of the only ways I've seen to get an actual good work sample out of someone that doesn't exploit either party - good on you guys!
Any examples of companies that are more liberal would be really appreciated!
Lifestyle inflation...

Oh, I just got a raise, a new car would be useful, or maybe I should do some upgrades around the house.

The average american is two paychecks for losing everything in their life.
It's not really lying if the buttons used to work, now they don't, but they're expensive to remove so the government just leaves them there. It's at worst a lie of omission. The moral question is more like, is it the government's responsibility to spend money removing a nonfunctioning button to save people the negligible amount of time/effort it takes to press it? The answer is probably not considering that there are lots of ways the government could save people time/effort by spending more money but doesn't.
There's no need to introduce a creator in order to explain evolution. Introducing a creator does not help explain anything that could not be explained without it either. It is not a rational belief.
Talking about this:

https://staff.aist.go.jp/tanaka-akira/succinct/slide-pro114....

They extract from Coq to C. Like in my Brute-Force Assurance concept, that would let us confirm and supplement the formal verification by hitting the C output with every V&V tool for C programs that we have on hand.
That depends very highly on the particular job.

Professional employees (lawyers, accountants, scientists) make less in government (usually much less), but non-professional employees usually make more in government.
>PopSockets is currently moving over 10 million products a month, with a unit price of just $10.

10 million units per month at $10/unit? I call bullshit. That would put them at $1,200,000,000 per year.

I've seen them around, but maybe 1 per 1000 people. Amazingly successful, but someone screwed up the numbers.
In the case of payday loans I don't think we have to worry about throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The number of people that will literally start turning to the Mafia for loans has got to be minuscule.

On the other hand, the number of people who will no longer be bent over a barrel every day will be significantly improved.
Sure.

First, many of the problems the government tries to solve are not problems with easy solutions. There are no businesses (that I know of, anyway) out there with the goal of providing free education to every child in a community. Or feeding and housing disabled people. And so on. THe failure of the government to perform better in these areas is sometimes referred to as "inefficiency", but what are we comparing government's performance against? Is there a baseline for how well any entity can do fighting a war on poverty?

Second, often, the government has goals fundamentally different from making money, eg in fighting and winning wars. We complain about the F35 being a bondoggle. But that's only true if you think the government's goal is to acquire a better fighter aircraft than China or Russia for as little money as possible. But that isn't exactly the government's goal. The government wants to acquire a fighter aircraft that makes winning such wars most likely -- in other words, it is maximizing the likelihood of winning wars. The cost of that maximization is clearly secondary. To a business, any expense past what you need to beat the competition looks like waste. To the government, any step you didn't take to maximize your chance of success looks like risk.

Third, the government holds itself to legal ethics standards that, inevitably, slow it down. Take government contracting. When the government lets a contract, it can't go to the obviously best qualified business and write a check. It has to advertise. How long it has to advertise for depends on the size of the contract, but it's rarely less than 90 days. It has to fairly evaluate all proposals. It gives extra points to small or minority owned businesses. It then writes a contract that is in keeping with the Federal Acquisitions Regulations (the FAR), which is a body of US Law that literally takes up an entire row on the bookshelf. Most of that law was written to protect businesses from potentially unethical government behavior, given that the government is more powerful than any business it is likely to contract with.

For instance, the interaction between the Contracting Officer's Representative (the COR - the primary liason between the government and the contractor) is strictly limited to reduce the ability of the government to ask for special favors. Violations of the contract or the law surrounding it as a result of behavior of the COR can result in the COR being personally liable, which is to say: if you, as a COR, result in either the government or the business losing money, they can come after your house and your retirement, all the ay up to the value of the losses. If the government loses a million dollars, the COR can be held liable for that amount. As a consequence, there's little incentive to streamline the way the government works with contractors, and every incentive in the world to make sure every t is crossed and every i dotted.

This list can go on and on. The ultimate reason the government is less efficient than a business is that it isn't one. It isn't solving the same problems, it isn't operating by the same rules, and it doesn't have the same incentives.
What would indicate to, say, a scientist taking a job earning a modest salary that they would be unable to earn a paycheck for over a month?
Private sector employees carry the risk of being fired or laid off. I don't see why public sector employees should not. They should have some protections from political firings, but that's it.

Salary levels have nothing to do with it. Perhaps they might have to be higher if public sector employees had to have this risk, or perhaps there would be fewer people willing to work in the public sector (a win, that).

And again, if you hard to work w/o pay, you should get back-pay. This is only about furloughed employees.
No, they tend to be just paid less, period. They pay and benefits is WAY better in the private sector, and job security is only partially true.
TLS establishes a secure channel between a client and a server. Both the client and the server have access to the plaintext.

E2EE establishes a secure channel between two clients who each have access to the plaintext, via an intermediating server which has no access to the plaintext.

The two clients are the "ends" in E2EE. E2EE does not mandate that the server is uninvolved in the key exchange.