skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I personally find the idea that augmented reality headsets are "weapons" to be extremely stupid. Augmented reality doesn't really have much of a market yet and cutting yourself off from the US military also seems really stupid. The entire origins of computing and the internet was about facilitating the US military.
If I have learned anything from history, is that is sucks to be on the losing side of a war. As a worker, I will happily pay taxes and do stuff that helps make sure my side is never on the losing side of a war. As a citizen and voter, I will use my vote and my voice to keep us out of wars that are either unwinnable or unjust. Trying to intentionally reduce the effectiveness of my military as these Microsoft workers are trying to do is not something I will do.

The alternative to US military dominance, isn't a peaceful utopia, it is either Chinese military dominance or Russian military dominance. You can be sure that Chinese and Russian tech companies are trying their best to increase the effectiveness of their country's military.
There is a quote from his book "Women" that pretty much explains everything this article is complaining about:

"Hey baby, when I write, I'm the hero of my shit."

You either accept that conceit - or there isn't much point reading his work.
I don't have any graphs as like I said it's just my opinion. I'm really only basing it off of 4 things.

1. The general excitement around Lightning Network on Twitter with Jack and tippin.me, as well as this website: https://lightningnetworkstores.com/

2. Coinbase's reported 48,000 merchants/partners reported here: https://www.coinbase.com/clients?locale=en-US

3. I frequent similar places everyday - 2 out of the 3 places that I frequent almost everyday are now accepting btc within the past 3 months - My coffee shop and bar.

4. Musing about Venezuela from crypto podcasts, and articles.

I'll admit I'm biased as I do think it's a good invention, and tend to support Bitcoin. Despite that, I am open minded and would happily check out any information that would propose things are tending in the opposite direction.
And how do you trust those third-party tools? How do you know they are not colluding with one smart-contract writer to steal your money?
I think the internet is just an awful place to have a "national discussion" honestly. Arguments you encounter are not representative of opinions actual people hold, both because of bad faith internet trolls & because of vocal minorities. I think people have started learning this, which is why so few people care about social media censorship and the lack of open debates on the internet. Most people have probably had enough 30 comment threads with trolls on facebook to not give a shit about internet debate by now.

Nowadays if I want a good debate or a debate on a truly controversial topic, I would only do so in a closed chat room with people I know. The internet is only for advertising my opinion rather than debating it, although I am as guilty as anyone of occasionally getting derailed into a full argument.
It's the first step into pattern matching, so I'm not surprised that it isn't as complete as other languages' implementations. But even without further language modification, I'd bet there are some tricksy things you could do to replicate that behavior. As the saying goes, "JavaScript finds a way"
Hollywood is not an example supporting your point (SAG - Screen Actors Guild).
Holly... scored 151, should i go and do something with this?
Before I continue, how exactly does a dictatorship play into what I said?

You realize say, peer review is a thing. You can't just publish whatever on a news site. Or in scientific journals, or your community bulltein board.

So I'm a bit confused.
Another example: the only technology, today, being realistic, to actually make an impact in CO2 reduction, is nuclear. And nuclear was born as a weapon. In a race to beat the enemy, who would have got the technology soon after.
A good CEO can create massive value, but the present value of any particular choice of CEO -- which should be an upper bound to the performance-independent pay they are able to negotiate -- needs to be diminished according to the uncertainty in the evaluation. That's where the leverage excuse falls apart: uncertainty is through the roof. Everybody's throwing darts at a dart board and everybody knows it, so if the story about rational value estimation and leverage were the whole truth we would not expect to see CEOs reliably paid stratospheric salaries for mediocre or failing performance, yet that's exactly what we see. We should therefore consider alternative explanations.
Eh, I would disagree based on what you see within the various entertainment unions/guilds in movies and TV. I think there's a path there.

I know back when I was in the industry I would have killed for a organization like what was available in film.
Amazon HQ2 Skeptics Hope to Derail Arlington Incentives
What laws has Facebook actually broken? Real leadership from the states would see data protection legislation with teeth. Outside of HIPAA it's a wild west and everyone you deal with is selling your data. Why should Facebook be singled out for data that was voluntarily handed over in return for a free service?
>I think there are a lot of people hoping Trump will be re-elected not even remotely because of any measure of competence or even particularly as a matter of policy, but just as a way to say, no, the culture war doesn’t get to disqualify a Presidential candidate by drawing him as a caricature of a nazi or a racist.

Ok, and I'm hoping to have Sanders win on grounds of policy. Because, you know, once you actually get down to observable, object-level matters of Presidential performance like competence or policy, Trump is motherfucking godawful by almost everyone's standards, before you start warping the standards for culture-war reasons.
No, the bigger reason why unions are never going to happen in the tech industry (thankfully), is that many unions and guilds intentionally create huge barriers to entry, in order to keep out people from non-traditional backgrounds, in order to reduce competition.

IE, to keep out immigrants, newbies, and people without degrees.

But over the last 10 years or so, there has been a huge influx of new people into the tech industry, and we are starting to outnumber those from traditional backgrounds who would have tried to prevent us from getting a job in the industry.

A bootcamper isn't going to join a union that would have outlawed their ability to get a job. An immigrant isn't going to join a union that would have them deported.

Instead, we will defect and sabotage those efforts, every step of the way. And there really are quite a lot of us in the tech industry, from non-traditional backgrounds these days. And we are smart enough to fight efforts that would have us fired, or that would pull up the ladder behind us.
Do you think it's fair to evaluate the necessity of an army at a time of relative global peace? (Which, don't forget, has followed the advent of terrible, terrible weapons, not a shared vision of global peace.)

Would you have the same feeling if the Nazis had won World War II?
If a program manages to avoid the entire maze of deathtraps, the C standard calls it strictly conforming. I doubt anything commonly used today could qualify.
I think it’s a perfect opportunity to hackerishly use "car | cdr" or "head | tail"
I may not understand you.

What about the string `({)}`? That is not balanced, so how would any counting or pairwise comparison work?
So we have to do whatever the army wants based on the principle that we owe them for inventing computers?
Or perhaps to admit that the concept is trying to build a skyscraper out of raw sand and that the very concept needs to be revisited.

My own /personal/ views on the IP related matters can be summarized:

Trade Mark(s): Good, keep forever as long as the presence in commercial offerings is refreshed on an ongoing basis; limit to /commercial/ for profit enforcement.

Copyright: Public domain needs to happen, a LOT faster. Renewal should need to be active and exponentially more expensive. Automatic copyright probably needs to expire after around 10 to 20 years. (I favor rounding down to the year and using 11 years for first registration, and a multiple of 5 years for rounds there after.)

Patents: Please prove me wrong that they aren't effective and are a myth. Processes of how to do things often come down to engineering and math; if given the same goal a solution is likely to be similar at it's core as for any given problem there is probably an ideal bound and variations of effort will produce similar results or results optimized slightly to different circumstances.
I've talked to some DARPA people. The fact that employees will openly revolt for ethics in groups is something everyone has to consider now. The Project Maven thing produced a chilling effect for how they write grants. They feel the pushback and have to think about ethics a little harder.
I don't get it. Having your software being able to run on two different plaforms, means that that software need to be tested twice, maintained twice. Your architecture decision might be optimal for one platform but not for the other, so you have to change your development process, have test env for both platforms, etc. You can't just cross-compile and hope it works.

All of this costs money, in terms of either having more developers/testers or having longer development time. So, in order to justify this investment, the second platform must be way cheaper in order to cover costs for extra developers/development time. And if there is a such huge difference and second platform works great, then why still have support for first platform anyway. Ditch it, and you will save yourself some money.

You could be an ISV, but again, your software will be more expensive if you need to support two different platforms. Which means that your customers must be willing to pay for it. Which brings us to same conclusion, unless there is a big saving by running software on alternative platform, nobody will care.
I feel like I’m living in the twilight zone seeing how far your comments been downvoted and the responses.

I totally support individuals rights to work on these kind of tools; and I totally support people demanding their work not be co-opted for lethal purposes
Like unemployment for those affected by such a short sighted choice like that. If history has taught us anything, it is that war is inevitable.

"Of the past 3,400 years, humans have been entirely at peace for 268 of them, or just 8 percent of recorded history."
- https://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/books/chapters/what-every...
Note that by "nobody" you mean actually mean a majority of New Yorkers, according to polling. Only 35% of New Yorkers were opposed to the plan.
I believe CEOs are compensated what they are in order to get them thinking like “owners” which many “professional” CEOs are not ultimately. Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Ballmer, Gates, Jobs don’t/didn’t need large salaries because their identities were tied to their companies.

Owners eat sleep and breath their company in a way the average salaried employee plucked at random from +10,000 employee company will not. To the points made by other comments, the CEO is entrusted to make decisions that can ripple through thousands instantly. The amount of value they can create or destroy in an instant is probably roughly in line with the multiple they are paid over the average employee. Thus their negotiating leverage is high and equity holders are happy to pay the price.

Said differently, if you owned all the equity of Google, how much would you be willing to pay to ensure that equity is protected? I think that number is more than 10x the salary of the average Google developer.

This is subject to the laws of supply and demand like any other system and it is pretty rational.
This is certainly a pretty big deal for a 12 year old. But also, it’s a hobby project that’s been around for decades.

Fusion is something we hear about in the media as being something very hard to achieve. It’s not. Achieving fusion beyond breakeven - so we can generate power from it - now that’s a very hard problem. It takes the combined effort of seven countries and billions of dollars.
Yes it does. Representative government has certain people make decisions on how public resources are spent. Every so often (but not so often as to have a direct say in anything) the people as a whole perform a check on their government. However, as it is representatives are the ones who make the decisions.

The representatatives control vast sums of money that are doled out to individuals.

However, representatives are themselves almost always of the upper classes. This is true regardless of whatever other minority groups the representatives may be part of.

A welfare-based representative government means that the poorer classes do end up depending on the government.
Thus, representative government in practice consists of rich people doling out money to help poor people who depend on it: the exact institution you criticize.
Human Interest (401(k) Provider) Is Hiring Engineers to Build Financial Systems
It'e been proven that this particular design can't achieve net power, but other designs probably can. Scientists are especially confident about the tokamak, for example. (And of course, thermonuclear bombs definitely achieve net power.)
Thanks. It looks like it's probably DKIM and DMARC failures in general, but I can't solve these problems for the sending domains. Some heavy-handed crackdown on best-practices is not helping anyone, if that's what's happened here. I need to receive the fucking emails in my inbox.

I'll just have to continue my migration off Google products. Too much power in the hands of people too irresponsible to wield it. Google should not be able to flip a switch and decide that my government can't communicate with me.
Mental performance needs practice just like physical performance. At some point you max out. And if you don't keep up practicing at level, your performance declines. Knowledge too is bound by those rules. We're constantly forgetting as we learn new stuff.

> I'll never forget that knowledge exists and where to find it if I should need to relearn.

Meaning you'd have to practice to again reach your former performance. Sure you may reach your peak level again and reach it quicker thanks to your old practice. But you do need to practice again. And then again, if you want to keep it.
I second reading Seneca and Nietzsche.

And I can't recommend https://www.youtube.com/user/academyofideas highly enough. This channel will be really helpful for your journey.

Start e.g. with this playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAYxecbGotUyqiNRXY_Vr...

I also recommend reading about the Graves model [1] and cognitive biases [2]. Another thing worth reading is the unified theory of psychology [3] and understanding the meaning of life and your belief system as psychological phenomena.

It's also very helpful to get a certain perspective about the relationship between emotions, rational thinking and yourself (no good link for that, unfortunately).

[1]: http://www.artofwellbeing.com/2017/09/05/gravesmodel/

[2]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

[3]: https://unifiedtheoryofpsychology.wordpress.com/
Just speculating here...

The Russian playbook in 2016 wasn't just to get Trump elected. It was to divide America. Now, we seem to be doing pretty well at that all on our own, but I wonder if some of their work would be to divide online communities, especially one where people from different tribes could talk reasonably with each other.

And, reading the article, it seems like this could easily have been an orchestrated campaign disguised to look like a bunch of people just self-organizing to yell at something they didn't like because it allowed "them" to speak. (Or, it could in fact have been just a bunch of people self-organizing to yell.)
Maybe something like Toki Pona? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toki_Pona
nobody is 100x more efficient than anyone else

The stockholders of Kodak, Blockbuster, Toys R Us, Radio Shack, Payless, Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, Enron, Worldcom, Tyco, DeLorean, TWA, Pan Am, and Arthur Anderson might beg to differ.
> Very notably it requires a focus on closing the books on past history, a final round of forgiveness/redemption, followed by a better path forward. Which is the exact opposite of the kind of justice that the reparations crowd is asking for.

We in the US are saddled by a thriving grievance industry, whose basic motives and goals are contrary to reconciliation.
People are also free to vote for people like Ocasio-Cortez, who are more than willing to take it from the top as it continues to spiral out of whack. You can only displace the bottom for so long, until they get fed up enough and vote for radical change, or worse. That's probably not what most want, myself included, but here we are going from 20:1 in the 70's to 300:1. How far do you think that can reasonably keep tilting until people force a correction? There is a tipping point, and it's not infinite.

It's not a knee jerk reaction to people making a lot of money. It's an honest reaction to watching the people at the top continue to grow and grow and grow over the last 40 years while the rest are basically paid the same (adjusted for inflation) as they were making 20 years ago.

It's not me you need to convince. It's the tens of millions of people who are barely making it, watching others get tax breaks while they truly struggle with the basics of life. We're not at a reasonable balance any longer, and haven't been. We can continue the status quo, and change will eventually be forced. Something reasonable needs to give here, and the answer isn't everybody becoming a CEO.
You're jumping at the least charitable interpretation of that comment. I'd suggest practicing the opposite: if someone seems to be saying something obviously extreme, stupid, etc... consider that your interpretation is what's wrong.
No, we should clearly go back to the days of low tech seige warfare, when battles were won by slowly starving people until they gave up.
x86 didn't "lose" to x86-64, it just extended the 20 year compatibility story that goes all the way back to the 386.

Intel tried "another instruction set" (Itanium) and nearly lost the market to AMD (AMD64)
Both good points, but is the military always bad? They are a great resource as an incubator for tech and they are especially receptive to this industry.
I think there's a larger and more complex argument here. Technologies like AR dehumanize war. It becomes not that different to dropping some bombs in a video game like Call of Duty.

I believe people who work on these technologies simply don't want to have that "blood" on their hands.

Unfortunately, for every person that don't want to get involved in this, there's probably a few that do. So those $450MM will end in the bank accounts of Raytheon or any of the other usuals suspects.
> High-tech weapon systems save lives. But I am pretty sure you already know that.

Not the OP, but what the high-tech weapon systems do (among other things, like killing innocent people attending weddings in remote parts of Afghanistan or Yemen) is to disengage the killers (i.e. the people making the decision to shoot, sometime from thousands and thousands of miles away) from their acts, as those doing the killing bear almost no risks of getting killed in retaliation and they also don't get to see the distorted limbs of those they get to kill. As such, the decision to make the kill becomes more and more easy and more and more random, because it doesn't have almost any effects on those who are responsible for said killings.

This is a very, very sad state of affairs for us, as a species, I mean, the fact that we've managed to make the act of killing to have almost no moral consequences on those that actually carry said killings.
>- smaller, by many orders of magnitude

- from a highly homogeneous distribution of cultural backgrounds

- mostly of comfortable material means

These are, and have probably always been, prerequisites for the kind of civil discourse you're talking about.

In no way in the "idyll of the early internet" I was part of, did I consider fewer people of "homogeneous cultural background" and not poor, as the "prerequisite" for open discussion.

>The techno-libertarian-utopian ideals of the early internet were always a pipe dream because they failed to recognize the role of these factors in their culture, and attributed it all to the medium itself.

Sorry, but part of my techno-libertarian-utopian ideal was open discussion period. Not some version of "civilized" discussion that should follow some specific form and decorum.

Trolling, flame wars, controversial opinions (all of which were part of the BBS culture and Usenet), were totally fine too.

If we just wanted fewer people of middle/upper middle class homogeneous cultural background, we could just talked to our friends face to face.
Matching parenthesis is a puzzle question. Either the candidate knows to use a stack, or he's gonna spend one hour to figure it out.
This is the tyranny of the Nash equilibrium.

Eventually, though, it's necessary to find some solution, outside of the game- or, eventually, the inherent instability of ever-increasing military power will cause some very, very bad outcomes- for all parties involved.
There's no way to tell, it's just a form you can fill out to sign the open letter.
Developers are finally realizing the following have nothing to do with "meritocracy":

- Non-compete agreements

- Forced arbitration

- Wage fixing (such as Google, Apple, etc. used to do)

- IP ownership agreements (even when not using company
equipment or time)

- H1B visa abuse

- And many more

Maybe it's also a marketing problem, don't call it a union, call it a guild or association.
No, the point is that a lot of good things come out of military spending.
how can mattel's median pay be 6k?
Since we’re talking about Apple stores, here’s an anecdote about competing on service: My iPhone was rebooting at random, in the middle of use, with some regularity. I was in an area with no Apple store, so I swung by an authorised Apple repairer/reseller. I explained my problem, and the guy around the counter, while very apologetic, explained there was no way I was having my phone swapped out. He didn’t have stock of my particular model, but even if he did, he said, if he swapped it out and Apple determined it to be non-defective, they’d make him eat the cost of the device, which he couldn’t afford.

A week later when I was back home I took it to the nearby Apple store. The lady there looked at it, shrugged, walked out back and came out with a new phone. This isn’t because she cared more, it’s because she cared less.
Ask HN: What Are Your Experiences with the serverless paradigm and FaaS?
What are your experiences with services such as AWS lambda? What, if anything, were they lacking? What did they do right?

Additionally, could you elaborate on the specifics of situation where you used, or were exploring the possibility of using, these technologies?
I guess target audience might be the wrong term since I'm not really thinking of a target audience in terms of "teenage guys who like sports" and stuff like that, but more along the lines of "people who like slow-paced movies about family drama and adolescence".

For example my favorite film, "A Brighter Summer Day" (1991), is four hours long. It's almost certainly not going to be your cup of tea if you dislike long and slow-paced movies, but that doesn't make it a bad film. It just means that it isn't for you.
Humans are a part of nature. Everything we do and all our technology is based on the laws of nature. Therefore by definition, everything we do is natural. Animals in general try to create an environment that is suitable for them - whether it be be birds building a nest, or beavers building a dam. Humans are just really, really good at modifying their environment, but we are still a part of nature.