skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I don't imagine excuses for bad business decisions--There's really no point to adding a layer of rationality on top of an all too common failure.

This isn't a "game". I don't believe there are different levels of 'user'. This platform brings together your real-time geo-position, published maps, published transit schedules, multiple transit systems, and real-time system updates together. It's all there and all useful for every user from the very start.

The failure in the redesign is to leave the 'page' or 'modal' UX behind in favor of this hybrid/gesture controlled marble on maze UX.

They hit a home run from the beginning, and fracked it up. What's the 'nature' of a map? It's to be as big as possible, and yet they've layerd the schedule and took 50% of the screen away from the map.

If there's a difference among users, it's found when you live in a transit-rich community, like I do in NYC Metro (and you need a good app like Transit was). If you live in the sticks and there's only one line, then you open the app, check the schedule and you're done.

This is why I believe this _criticism_ is so important. I think we need to have a way to articulate these choices. Maybe a critical voice asking _Should we make this UX change at all?_, _Are we staring at our navel?_ Which is to say, in our own little bubble? Are these changes going to improve the software? Or, are we only showing off so we can justify our employment?

If they wanted to do such a radical redesign, why not fork the project? They could capture 'new users' with the Transit Marble Maze app.
I don't believe that this huge difference in margins is purely down to pragmatic considerations anywhere in the world.
Facebook 2FA is to mitigate data regulations and better tracking
When the cartoon and quote work together, it's amazing

http://www.nietzschefamilycircus.com/perm.php?c=144&q=29
Have you tried Clerky?

As some practical unsolicited advice, most prominent law firms in the bay area charge $2500k - $5k for full incorporation service and you can negotiate to defer typically $10k - $25k in fees until you do a first fundraise or have enough cash flow to start paying your bills. These firms are expensive, but paying a few thousand to make sure things are done right will go a long away as the cost of fixing this stuff later can exceed $10k. If you have a simple or low touch business, then maybe some of these automated services will work well for you. Otherwise, if you are considering raising venture money at some point, I'd suggest going with a traditional law firm or use these services as a starting point and have a lawyer give everything they are doing a quick scan to make sure they are doing things right.
When India’s Russian jets achieved a 9:1 kill ratio against U.S. F-15s (2014)
...except in emergency situations. Starting the APU was one of the first things they did during the “Miracle on the Hudson” incident IIRC. It’s conceivable that some in-air emergency happening prior to the loss of communication would have required starting it as a checklist item.

EDIT: I just wanted to add that aside from electrical power, it provides bleed air necessary to start the engines, run de-icing (also run A/C packs, operate toilets, etc.) —Hence its usefulness in an emergency situation.
This is not mine, but from the “clojure grams” twitter account:

(defn maze [n]
(->> (repeatedly (* n n) #(rand-nth "╱╲"))
(partition n)
(transduce
(comp
(map #(apply str %))
(interpose "\n"))
str)))

Simpler output but related and also quite interesting!
I disagree on the grounds that it already happened. Perhaps survivor bias is obscuring the fact that Teslas alone have already driven roughly billion miles on autopilot. Perhaps we don't hear about those because they are uneventful.

https://hcai.mit.edu/tesla-autopilot-miles

Yes there will be bugs--all software will have bugs--and they will decline over time. Meanwhile, the accident rate of autopilot is probably better than human drivers.

https://electrek.co/2018/10/04/tesla-first-vehicle-safety-re...
depends on the country. If I remember correctly france is worst with some 3-strike law.
I think it is going to be hard to draw an apples-to-apples comparison since I do not think there is data that allows us to drill down to just self-driven highway accidents in situations where autopilot would work. It is easy to say your accident rate is low when you are comparing numbers for fair weather highway driving to data that includes inclement weather or situations that autopilot would not operate properly in the first place.
Dunno - Szabo tweets a bit about Venezuela and the old communist famines. That kind of stuff I guess.
Guy Davenport is another fascinating essayist - a true polymath - he ties together narratives that are at first glance unrelated into a beautiful whole. I've only read The Geography of the Imagination which is 40 essays, but he has other compilations as well. One of his essays is on Youtube narrated by a former student apparently. https://youtu.be/sFe7cqXuzZU
Wow is this ever overkill.

This needs to be coupled with a lot more “how and we we picked this methodology” advise or information.

For example, if the goal is to reduce risk then is this the best way to approach that? Are all these components black boxes which cannot be stubbed out? Are there any other end to end or integration tests that can be ran in a canary environment that are way faster which will cover the most obvious use cases?

Id really think a few times before adopting this practice.
If there aren't easily available and widely used tools for a chosen language, then it might not be the right choice.
I never understand how people can even argue that uniform style is necessary, you have to dig into 3rd party code with different styles every day anyway.

And imo autoformatters are too inflexible. Most default rules are ok when you don't make any effort about formatting at all but break down when you manually lay out things for improved readibility. E.g. when splitting arguments to one arg per line and parens on separate lines and the autoformatter will just go and squash them all together into single lines up to the line limit, except the lambda in the middle which will be broken out into a separate line. Or other fun things like that.

Formatters which rearrange code by alphabetical sorting or sorting by visibility are even worse. They can introduce so much commit noise just because you change an identifier.
Unless I'm misreading the take away is failure to appreciate graph/network theory is behind the Simpson paradox. And I think a lot of broken 20th century 'science'. Because theory was based on simplistic statistical analysis on processes with strong path dependence.
I've been on call most of my working life. When I worked at reddit, I was on call 24/7/365. The only time I wasn't on call was for the weekend of my wedding.

When I got to Netflix, only being on call one week a month was a drastic improvement. It meant that I could plan my vacations and important family events around not being on call. On the flip side, my family understood if I suddenly got up from dinner to take a call or get out my laptop. My on call schedule was shared with the family so we could all plan accordingly. Sometimes when it was my week and I had something really important, I would ask a coworker to cover that night for me, and then do the same for them in the future.

The salary for the position accounted for this inconvenience, and it wasn't a surprise. Since everyone who does SRE has this same responsibility, it's built into the compensation. Some companies actually give you extra money when you are on call (I hear Google is one of them).

Yeah, it kinda sucks from a family perspective, but it is what it is. As long as you set expectations with everyone around you, it's not that big a deal.

As it turned out at Netflix, since I was the lead, it meant that I was the secondary or tertiary on call at all times, but again, the family knew this, and also, my coworkers knew that if I didn't answer it was because I really really couldn't take the call at that time, and everyone was fine with that. It just rolled up to next person. Only the first on call was expected to answer, all the rest of us were on a "it would be great if you could" basis.
Do git commit hooks work for you? You and your collaborators can do whatever. The hook ensures things are converted to either tabs or spaces prior to commit. You can also set up a CI job to auto-reject any PRs that aren't tab/space compliant.

This is all pretty pretty straightforward to configure on a per-repo basis too, so you can hop around multiple projects with different standards and not have to think too much about this.
It depends on the exact formatting used. Many popular schemes only require tabs at the beginning of the line, and are not dependent on tab size.
I think it’s pretty insane that it’s taking companies this long to transition away from Oracle.
In some unusual scenarios the APU may be used during flight. If one of the engine's generators fails the APU might be used to help provide power, and below some altitude the APU in the 777 can provide additional bleed air.

In the 777 the left and right hydraulic systems are powered by the left and right engines, but the center hydraulic system has electric and pressurized air driven pumps that I believe can be run off the APU: http://www.flight-mechanic.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/12...

If MH370 lost engine power, maybe it was using the APU to keep the control surfaces active? Who knows. In that sort of situation the 777 would be a glider though.
The challenge with substantial take home tests is that they have the potential skew your applicant pool in a number of ways that are not ideal for your business.

Firstly, as a general rule of thumb, the very best developers who are in the highest demand are unlikely to jump through the hoops, so immediately you're filtering out the very best applicants. As a business owner, that's not something I want to do.

Secondly, and equally importantly, you are likely to get more, young financially stable people with less outside of work commitments (including families which naturally correlate with age which in turn correlates with experience).

If you want to over-index on people with less experience and at the same time reduce the number of applications from people for whom the time commitment is problematic (including but not limited to females who statistically take on a disproportionate percentage of child care responsibilities and some members of traditionally under represented minorities) all you do is reduce the likely diversity of talent you might otherwise get to pick from for your dev team.
I feel like every article that shows Bezos's face rather than the Amazon logo turns out to not be worth my time.
There are many comments in this thread about whiteboard vs take-home programming challenges. That's a false dichotomy. What I would really like to see is an interview where I am allowed to code on a computer (at the interview) instead of a whiteboard. I would like to be able to write real code, and test it while I'm coding, as I normally do when programming.
Carl Benjamin, an "anti sjw" YouTuber actually read and reviewed one of her books[1], and liked her unpretentious and communicative writing style, even if he disagreed with some of her ideas.

I for one like her too, but I find that when some media critics try to apply her methodology to pop culture, it can be problematic and clumsy.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePCMMFJIolo
I completely agree that having candidates solve trivia, puzzles, riddles, and brainteasers on a whiteboard is an extremely poor method of evaluation. Outstanding developers can mentally freeze when asked to solve even fairly trivial problems in front of a critical audience. Having candidates use a whiteboard to illustrate and explain details of projects or problems that they have previously worked is far more productive. You then drill them within their familiar context regarding their design choices and present them with what-if scenarios that might have changed their approach. It is more realistic and it helps put candidates at ease so you can better evaluate their thought processes, enthusiasm, and practices. I cannot recall a real-world situation where a developer had to solve a detailed problem in front of a critical audience. In front of a critical audience, you either know the answer or you say when you can have the answer.
See https://www.eff.org/cases/oracle-v-google

Oracle won the last round, Google asked the Supreme court to look at it in January. Guess we'll know some time soon.
It’s also used as an adjunct for anabolic steroids. That’s more likely the case than clomiphene alone resulting in superphysiological androgen levels.
But why? You can enforce coding styles in a passive way through linters and formateers that work actoss IDEs. And in those rare cases that a junior dev is trying to show their worth by using a poorly configured VIM or Emacs, then there’s pre-commit hooks.
Fair enough, though I'm more concerned about the claims for fully autonomous vehicles without driver controls. How many times in those billion miles did a human driver intervene? Or rather, would it have been two billion miles on autopilot if the human driver had not had to take control?
Python Security Best Practices Cheat Sheet
Yes. But my question is still unanswered: Do other editors provide something like this for other languages? It seems to me that it's a MS only thing.
The rate of mere accidents isn't the metric you're necessarily looking for. What's relevant is the rate of accidents compared to the rate of fatal accidents, for manual driving.

And then the same for autopilot.

Tesla's stingy with their mileage data though, so you have to get academic.

Combining our crash data with the MIT numbers, we arrive at the following fatal Tesla accident rates:

- Autopilot: 0.25 per 100 million miles

- Human Pilot: 0.20 per 100 million miles.

(Put another way, one Autopilot fatal crash every 400 million miles, one human pilot crash every 500 million miles.)

https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1119936_tesla-fatal-cra...
There are some popular coding standards that essentially require it, unfortunately.

My opinion on this is that it's a bad idea in the age where we (finally) have near universal acceptance of source control, because they bloat commits with irrelevant changes in surrounding lines to preserve alignment when identifiers change. Black got it exactly right - optimize for readability and change locality.
I think this point has great merit. From time to time I sit on the industrial relations board of our local university's CS department and I begged to have at least one basic software engineering best practice module as part of their new data science degree, with no luck. Many universities have Research Software Engineering departments now who can help with this stuff, but on the whole code produced by non-CS academics is dross (but honestly god bless you if you're offended by this characterisation and it doesn't apply to you).
why are you against it?
Thank you for the response! Do you know how well this method works compared to training on the whole dataset?
I agree, if you implement a linked list in production code, you've almost certainly made a mistake.

My point is that a linked list is such a simple concept that anyone with real programming experience should be able to write a basic implementation.

It's a Shibboleth; I only care about your ability to perform the task because it tells me something else about you.
Also see this one: https://mzucker.github.io/2016/08/03/miniray.html

which generated the logo for the IOCCC!
Not everybody is concerned about riding a bike for decades. Your parent just wrote he saves 30min a day with the ebike. That is 100 hours per year easily. That pays for a new ebike a year at any price you could reasonably assign to your time. The bike lifetime is an absolute sideshow in this example.
Sure but keep in mind that there is no objective, this is just free expression, or, an art project.
DPI = Deep Packet Inspection
With this latest death, it seems Tesla’s death rate would be significantly higher than the 40K+ luxury segment. Tesla usually does the comparison using all vehicles which include a lot of older vehicles that don’t have advanced sensors and such things as automatic advanced braking and side curtain airbags. In the 40K+ luxury segment, vehicles in general have these safety features.
My co-worker and I (he was into sneakers, I was into money) used to have a nice little business arbitraging sneakers. Pretty easy to make 100%-500% returns with a little code and some ebay dedication.
If a take home assignment takes more than 2-3 hrs, or is one of those “spend as much time as you like”, you’re in a not great situation. The mgr likely doesn’t know exactly what he’s looking for, or likely doesn’t care too much about employee welfare.

If you find yourself here, stand up for yourself. Say you have a number of interviews going on and that you are happy to do a 2-3 hr assignment (the same as an on-site interview).
> You underestimate the value of uniformity and group pressure.

I don't, because I've worked in both kinds of environments and have not seen any benefits to the system you propose. Uniform development machines doesn't automatically mean that you've solved all consistency problems. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "build tools" specifically, but any software needed for a project to run should ideally live within a Vagrant VM (or Docker or whatever), so it should be self-contained and not require any installation of additional software.

> How did you pick up a programming language and editor in the first place? How did you pick up a new one? It was fine.

IME, it takes several months to really become fluent and productive in a new editor, and potentially longer for a new language (depending on previous experience, etc). So "it's fine" as long as you consider a multi-month learning curve "fine".
> Something that works well most of the time is going to lull drivers into not paying attention.

That's my biggest objection, I either want to be 100% disengaged or nothing. A system that wants but doesn't require you to pay attention and allows you to check out is absurd. It's hard enough sometimes reacting to things when you are driving but a system that let's you stop paying attention but might ask you to make immediate responses to situations it can't handle? Hell no.

We've had our Tesla since November and it has given us two 30 day trials of Autopilot and the "no thanks" is so obfuscated that it's easier to say yes and then opt out after it enables it.

Some of the features like Intelligent Cruise Control would be nice but no way in hell do I want the half assed autopilot feature.
Should a government have the power to dictate how many children we have? That does not seem abhorrent to you?

Strange days when one is downvoted for criticizing China's immoral and brutal policy that violated the most basic of human rights.
Car And Driver: We Crash Four Cars Repeatedly to Test the Latest Automatic Braking Safety Systems [1]

"To understand the strengths and weaknesses of these systems and how they differ, we piloted a Cadillac CT6, a Subaru Impreza, a Tesla Model S, and a Toyota Camry through four tests at FT Techno of America's Fowlerville, Michigan, proving ground. The balloon car is built like a bounce house but with the radar reflectivity of a real car, along with a five-figure price and a Volks­wagen wrapper. For the tests with a moving target, a heavy-duty pickup tows the balloon car on 42-foot rails, which allow it to slide forward after impact.

The edge cases cover the gamut from common to complex. Volvo's owner's manuals outline a target-switching problem for adaptive cruise control (ACC), the convenience feature that relies on the same sensors as AEB. In these scenarios, a vehicle just ahead of the Volvo takes an exit or makes a lane change to reveal a stationary vehicle in the Volvo's path. If traveling above 20 mph, the Volvo will not decelerate, according to its maker. We replicated that scenario for AEB testing, with a lead vehicle making a late lane change as it closed in on the parked balloon car. No car in our test could avoid a collision beyond 30 mph, and as we neared that upper limit, the Tesla and the Subaru provided no warning or braking. (Emphasis mine)

Our tests also exposed the infallibility myth that surrounds computers and automated vehicles. Driving the same car toward the same target at the same speed multiple times often produces different results. Sometimes the car executes a perfectly timed last-ditch panic stop. Other times it brakes late, or less forcefully, or even periodically fails to do anything at all. In our stationary-vehicle test, the Impreza's first run at 50 mph resulted in the hardest hit of the day, punting the inflatable target at 30 mph. It was only on the second attempt that the Subaru's EyeSight system impressively trimmed the speed to just 12 mph before the collision. All the results in the charts in this feature show a car's best performance."

Note that these tests were executed against an object intended to replicate the radar profile of a light vehicle. I expect worse results against a semi's trailer. Tesla is not alone in facing this challenge.

To be clear, these systems are a net win: without automatic emergency braking, fatality rates would be much higher. People will still die, but less people than before.

[1] https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a24511826/safety-featu...
I wonder if the right thing to do is to simply give interviewees a choice between whiteboard interviews and take home tests. I seem to be in a minority, but I personally prefer whiteboard interviews over take home tests, but I can easily understand why many people prefer take home.
> wouldn’t this accomplish the opposite effect?

Yes. It's an affectation. To suggest that it's "to shift the attention from her identity to her ideas" is either incredibly naïve or simply dishonest. Deliberately breaking the established conventions of English writing in such a visible way is sure to draw attention to the name/identity, not shift it away.