skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Steve always had a problem with heavy big blue computers:

"Unaccustomed as I am to public speaking, I'd like to share with you a maxim I thought of the first time I met an IBM mainframe: NEVER TRUST A COMPUTER YOU CAN'T LIFT." -Macintosh

https://youtu.be/pptb1Uzn7SQ?t=3m04s
I found this: https://www.bestplaces.net/cost-of-living/austin-tx/seattle-... . The site doesn't seem fly by night but who knows: https://www.bestplaces.net/docs/team.aspx .

Edit: also found this: https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?cou... .
Wow this is 25 years ago? I can vaguely remember when Eric Youngdale approached libc's HJ Lu to fix shared libs by not reinventing the wheel but using Sys V ELF. Great article by Eric back than https://www.linuxjournal.com/article/1060 .
I do agree with you, even though SSN/DOB can be used to identify a person, it should not be used to identify a unique person [1].
As you said, Identity should not be confused with proof of identity. Hopefully it will get better with time.

[1] - https://www.pcworld.com/article/3004654/a-tale-of-two-women-...
I see code comments as useful for two categories of things:

1) Information that is available by reading the code. In this case, the comments serve as a short-cut to understanding the code. They might be explaining what an obscure flag does, noting the name of the algorithm being implemented, or giving an overview of the structure of the code. You could learn that by reading the code, but reading the comment is faster.

2) Information that is _not_ available by reading the code (or is unlikely to be corrected derived by reading the code). For example, the reasoning behind decisions can only be guessed at by reading the code alone.
By hand, 37% correct after 55 inputs.
I disagre with "Those first two are insanely high level" but totally agree with the "with large standard libraries." part.
Total comp for a Senior SW Engineer at one of the big tech companies would be 300-400k/yr.
Find Collabs: Find Project Collaborators
Doing some bistromaths on the stated hover performance.

With a 231lb empty weight, 180lb rider, and 5 gallons of kerosene (ultra light version) you get

104kg + 81kg + 15 kg = 200kg

sfc of a Nike is 40 grams / (kN second) (Should have gone with Hawk ;) )

Lets say hover thrust on a nice still day will be around ~ 1.9kN -> 76.7grams per second of flight.

Assuming I've not made any mistakes that gives roughly 3.5 minutes of hovering flight on that 15kg of fuel (ignoring the fact the vehicle gets slightly lighter as the fuel burns off).

That sort of matches up with the spec, assuming the 10-22 minutes stated is for a lighter human on the experimentally licensed version of the vehicle.
I'm in my early 30s and very aware of this, to the point where if I could go back I'd pick a different career.

My strategy is: live in the bay area so I can get paid like crazy, live a very frugal life much below my means, invest diligently, and hopefully have enough money to retire in my late 30s (in a much cheaper area, of course), so that when I'll be told that I'm too old, I'll raise my middle finger and leave the scene with the few million dollars I saved.
He meant they're rejected by their ethnicity, regardless of their suitability.
In theory. But in fact it is the opposite. Companies are accountable to their customers above all else, and the government to its voters. If the IRS makes a mistake with your taxes and Amazon makes a mistake with your order, which of these would scare you more?
At the lowest level of every computer there's only zeroes and ones. Still you don't try to explain a neural network in terms of zeroes and ones. Because the emergent behaviour is much more complex than that.
i am one of those idiots who thought college was about knowledge, and it took me a long time to understand the "way of the world" you articulate here.

with that said, i still find education valuable and have had lots of it by now. it took that plus time and life experience to be able to properly criticize education itself (so i'm nitpicking at your concluding line a bit).
Termination is a red herring, the real problem you want to be worried about is configs that take more CPU / RAM than you have spare.
Restricting to primitive recursion does not help there.
See https://landing.google.com/sre/workbook/chapters/configurati...
Please follow the site guideline about titles: "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

(Submitted title was 'U.S. job growth slows dramatically, possibility of acool-down in the economy'.)
There's this weird notion that you can improve your lot in life by worrying more about the contents of other peoples' bank accounts than you do your own. I don't get it either.
Also, in my experience at least, it's not necessarily that routers drop TCP keep-alives, but rather that the keep-alive interval for most OSes is way longer than the router's connection timeout for idle entries in the NAT table.

I was burned hard by this in Azure. It seems that the default expiry time is around 4 minutes for the TCP load balancers. You can bump it to 30 min, but if I recall the default interval on Linux is 2 hours. Any long-standing idle TCP connections would get into a state where both sides believed they were connected, but the packets would get dropped to the floor. When the LB timed out, it didn't emit any FIN or RST packets, so neither side knew it had been torn down.

Fun debugging on that one. During the day there was enough activity to keep the connections alive, but at night they'd break. The overall behaviour was that the service worked great all day, but the first few actions out-of-business-hours would fail due to application-layer timeouts, and then everything would work great again until it had sat idle for a while.
"Who gets to have our empathy? Hitler or one’s wife? The living or the dead? Those near to us or far? Those who resemble and agree with us, or those who don’t? The one or the many? And when it comes to art, as Knausgaard rhetorically asks, “Is it not more important to engage with our neighbor, who after all is real, rather than with one who exists only in a work of fiction?”

I look at empathy not as a resource but as a muscle. Practicing empathy means cultivating a heart that emits it. Empathy should be directed at those you encounter, as you encounter them (or more precisely, those who stand to be affected by your actions). Works of fiction that inspire empathy for imaginary characters are training this muscle.

“In giving our tears to these fictions, we have satisfied all the rights of humanity without having to give anything more of ourselves; whereas unfortunate people in person would require attention from us, relief, consolation, and work, which would involve us in their pains and would require at least the sacrifice of our indolence.”

Empathy without action is inert, yes, but action without empathy is at best blind idealism, deaf to the effects it has on real souls, which has been the source of a large portion of history's evils.

One could just as easily say that a compass on its own doesn't propel you towards any goal. But a vehicle, pointed directly towards its destination and lacking a steering wheel, is worse.

As with most this-vs-that arguments, this essay is a banal oversimplification: both things are important. I don't know why that's so hard for people to accept.
An alternate explanation for that is that it was effectively a giant fractal dust bunny left over from the formation of a solar system. The fractal structure explains why it is so light. As for how fast it is traveling, it was traveling at close to the average speed of stars around us. The 25 km/s that we saw is mostly how fast we are traveling, not it. (The Sun bounces up and down through the galactic plane. We are currently "above" it and heading up. We'll next arrive back where we are in about 30 million years.)

There might be a lot of objects like that out there. In fact the fact that we randomly saw one suggests that there are many orders of magnitude more of them than we had realized.
Honest question, not trying to make a statement...

Is this really a left/liberal/progressive/dem position and if so why?

I'm mainly on the right and so I don't have a lot of insight into why Sen. Warren would be taking this position. To be frank I kinda would have expected something like this from Trump, not from her. Tech companies like Amazon seem to be left leaning (just looking at Bezos and his investment in WaPo). Wouldn't Warren want strong left leaning tech companies? Why would she want to go up against them?

Again I'm not trying to trigger anyone or make any political assertions. I generally don't understand and would love the input of others for familiar with Sen. Warren's platform.
I think if you don't like code signing for ideological/process reasons, you can argue that, preferably in reply to someone who wants to argue about it. But trying to work backwards from there to technical arguments that show how signing is the same thing as AV is futile, it just makes you type up longer versions of obviously technically inaccurate things.
The US government should replace SSNs. SSNs were never meant to be used this way.

Any good replacement should start with a set of APIs specifically targeting financial institutions/credit. Give the consumer a random, easily rotatable, numeric key (e.g. "14830-29928-8921-29"). The key + API can return a unique ID, but a unique ID cannot return its corresponding key (i.e. single directional flow).

The unique ID never changes for a given individual. If the consumer's key is lost, stolen, or breached the key can be re-issued and old one expired.

Make it illegal to store the numeric key itself in a database for long periods. Only the resultant Unique ID can be held. You'd never request from the consumer the Unique ID itself (otherwise it itself would become the new SSN); only their key for API verification.

Why is this a secure system? The information companies would store (Unique ID) is not the same information they need to process a new credit requests (Key).

Meaning the piece of information that identity thieves need to steel is short lived, and the long lived info cannot convert back to the short lived.
You'd be a billionaire with a bullet in him.
Code will definitely tell you how something's done with enough energy.

It will NEVER tell you WHY everything was done a given way - which is where the comments come in. The trick is to keep them updated, versioned and restricted to WHY.

Nothing worse than the template java comments that are filled in for the sake of it. I can't think of any codebase where I was able to reasonably rely on those anyway: except for publicly released API.
This reminds me of the pygmy sub-species of Blue Whale that live in the Indian Ocean.
Drivers around San Antonio can be insane, from my experience
I used to work at a fintech and seen Kba providers ask questions that provide zero security like “what county was your 1 Main Street Santa Monica,ca address located in”
The server can certainly send that header on a response when it intends to close the connection immediately after the response. I wouldn't consider that connection to be idle.

However, when the server holds the connection open for some amount of time and then decides to close it, it's not permitted for the server to send a response header, because there's no request to respond to. I would love to be wrong, but I don't think I am, because this scenario is mentioned in the RFC, "For example, a client might have started to send a new request at the same time that the server has decided to close the "idle" connection. From the server's point of view, the connection is being closed while it was idle, but from the client's point of view, a request is in progress." [1]

An example chain of events is:

t0 client opens connection (syn)

t1 server accepts connection (syn+ack)

t2 client sends first request

t3 server sends response and keeps connection open

...

t63 client sends second request

t63 (simultaneously within a margin of the one way trip time), server closes connection because it's been idle for
60 seconds

t64 client receives FIN

t64 server receives data on closed socket and sends RST

t65 client receives RST

http/2 improves this greatly because in this example, a compliant server will send goaway with last-stream-id 1 prior to closing the connection, and the client will know the second request was not processed and should be retried. It still suffers a latency penalty because it has to start a new connection, and it already wasted somewhere between a one way trip and a round trip.

[1] https://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec8.html#sec8....
I think it's more that older coders to a larger degree have more commitments, there's less time to keep up with all new things while doing your job, family and whatever clubs your kids are member of.
They are somewhat a hardware company. The design of their e cig is the best I've ever seen
Which European city has the most SF-like weather? :)
The author is right in one thing, which is the great thing about (some/a lot of) art is not just empathizing. However, giving the ability to empathize implies the true merit of such art, which is a record of the experience of a person, presented in such a way where you are able to look at yourself as that person--to find a common ancestor node and see a path from that node to the person presented through art.

From such a record, you increase the different perspectives from which one may base their "representative thinking", as mentioned in the article. The irony of lambasting art which provokes empathy while promoting representative thinking, is that it is exactly representative thinking with a limited set of viewpoints which literature (and art in general) which provokes empathy for people from different points of view attempts to cure.

If you try to put yourself in the place of another (which is different from immersion, in which you lose the connection to your sense of self, which is a distinction I think the author fails in not making), without the knowledge of their experiences, this ends in a total failure of understanding, and at a society-wide scale can lead (and has led) to destructive misperceptions. So to think this way without relying on resources which provoke empathy and force you to broaden your sense of self (meaning broadening the viewpoints which you are able to place yourself in) is actually very bad.

What is interesting about the book that the author mentions in the final section is not that it attempts to disassociate the reader and stop any kind of feeling of empathy, it's that it attempts to force you to consider what you've just felt. So it's a feature on top, or used in conjunction with empathy, not in spite of it.

"What would this model of art as “representative thinking” entail? Well, for one thing, literally more representation. One can only bring the experiences of others to mind if they are made imaginatively available to us. Perhaps, instead of the current distribution—portrayals of “default humans” (that is, straight white men, good and evil) vs. empathy vehicles (that is, everybody else)—we could simply have greater variety of experience represented in our art."

Ultimately the author seems to have some misunderstanding of the idea of empathy or at least empathy in art, especially if they think that no straight white male has even been portrayed in art in such a way to provoke empathy, and if they think that art in general is lacking in diverse representation.
Free education and guaranteed work? Sign me up!
Navigating the Leap from Big Tech to Startups – Advice from a Former Google Exec
Right, but what's the opinion of their ethnicity I wonder.
Well, he is a kind of king. On the other hand as image is pretty crucial to support fort the Tibetan cause, why doesn't he fly cattle car like the rest of us?
You are correct that randomness is relative.

Randomness implies unpredictability, which implies a lack of knowledge; if you can accurately predict what is going to happen next in some sequence, temporal or otherwise, by observing what has come before, then it isn't a random sequence.

But to someone who possesses all possible knowledge, nothing is random, because everything is predictable. A sequence might still retain certain properties that we associate with randomness (e.g. an unbiased distribution), but no sequence is random if you can always accurately predict the next item.

Obviously, none of us mere mortals is omniscient, but it is possible, for instance, to develop new predictive techniques and to turn once-thought-random sequences into non-random sequences.
Oh, and one more thing: This is the same bank that called me the other day to inquire about our application and--even though they called me--their representative got mad when I wouldn't give him the last four digits of both of our Social Security numbers and our dates of birth and Mother's Maiden Name / Security Answers from the application.

When I pointed out that a) he called me and b) this is, quite literally, exactly how scam calls trying to steal money go, he got upset at how I wouldn't "believe him." I told him that's exactly what a scammer would say and hung up.

My "private" information has been leaked to other governments and various malicious actors at least six times, just in 2018, so I'm a little more wary than I used to be and that pissed me off.
That EPIC lock-in, tho.....
You're making a lot of anecdotal generalizations here that contribute to the problem rather than help address it. What kind of music somebody likes or the clothing they're comfortable with shouldn't be part of the conversation at all, and for every anecdotal old-guy that hates Electron, I've met an anecdotal old-guy who's sharp as a tack and pushing the envelope with the latest tech.
> This statement is false.

No, it's not.

> Manning IS willing to testify though. Publicly.

That's meaningless, and probably only being stated because Manning knows (if only because her lawyers must know this) that it is meaningless. Criminal grand jury proceedings are secret, period, and criminal grand jury proceedings and findings are required initial step (absent confession) for serious federal criminal prosecution. Refusing to testify secretly is refusing to testify, period, and the claim that she is challenging the secrecy of the proceedings is meaningless PR fluff.

> Society should not be run on secret courts.

The criminal grand jury process is not a secret court that runs society; it is a secret process that must complete before certain charges are made, which are then prosecuted openly in the same court.

> If the US government wants to accuse wikileaks of something, then let them do so publicly.

The grand jury process is a gatekeeping function for public accusations of certain crimes. The US is trying to make a public accusation, and Manning is unlawfully interfering with the process by which it's desire to do so is assessed.
Indefinite imprisonment really needs to be looked at in the land of the free
I'd also argue:

4) cpu speed isn't the limiting factor many times now. Disk, memory, network, user input etc all are much more impactful honestly.

Sure getting a Blender run down 10% is huge, but what is that time saved compared to how long setting up the render took?
So Democrats are sticking to their guns with their belief that their problem was not going Left enough instead of realising to be more pragmatic and listen to people instead of ideologies.
Fair enough. Looks well thought out!
Isn't the point of government to represent the people? Sure, the parent poster is but one person, but on the whole, Americans were in favor of Net Neutrality.

Perhaps outright defending FANG is going too far, but the parent definitely has a point that ISP's should be looked into when we're discussing "breaking up" companies.
At least on macOS, Skype issues notifications on messages, and I think these notifications are programmatically accessible. I don't know if the analogous statement on Windows is true. Isn't it possible to just write a daemon to listen for the relevant notifications and then e-mail you?
Basically what will happen is that in some month X after IPO the company will be forced to pull back on new driver incentives (the thing that is really making these companies bleed cash), which will slow driver supply growth, which will increase rider wait times and/or make prices spike, which will lower demand, and thus slow growth, and kill the stock price.

I wouldn't touch this at all. Or short it if you're brave :)
> No it not normal. The government makes public accusations against people all the time. They have arrest warrants, they have most wanted lists, they give their opinion on the law and who broke them all the time.

AFTER a Grand Jury proceeding. Yeah, they're allowed to be public with the accusation only AFTER a jury has convened and said "there's enough evidence to publicly make the accusation".

Come on dude. You clearly care about protecting the defendant, which means any witness to a grand jury proceeding MUST be kept secret.
Ask HN: What problem does your business face that you’d pay to have solved?
Presumably something that you currently aren’t able to pay to have solved bc the solution isn’t there.

For context, I’m scouting problems to solve for an IndieHackers-esque capstone project, my personal objective being to net at least $1k over a ~5 months (could be any kind of problem at all, scale-wise and industry-wise).
Thanks.

I love killer whales. I also love that its called a "Type D"

Sounds like a different spec setting for "killer"

I wonder, as killer whales are dolphins, if this may be a porpoise/dophin/killer-whale derivative?

I also wonder if the shape of the head, being more rounded, has to do with its sonar capabilities. Perhaps associated with the range, or the spread of its ability to detect/stun critters with sonar.
No, you don't get linearizability of all operations, you might not even read your earlier writes - but the whole point is that you sometimes don't need these guarantees for reads. You get a consistent snapshot read, and that's often good enough. You can get an idea of how recent the snapshot is based on timestamps, but "recent" is hard to define in a distributed system.
It's trivial to find many examples of the government itself violating this "law".

I see no reason to believe that they'd take any steps to step in and protect Uyghurs' from discrimination in the job market while at the same time detaining them in concentration camps.
Are you asserting not having a credit card means you smell and are possibly crazy?
Regarding compilation, it's perfectly sensible: distcc has done that for a long time.

Part of the Plan9 design (which is almost 30 years old at this point) was the uniform access to computing resources across machines over the network. Unfortunately, we've mostly abandoned that and stuck with mainframe design.
Mhm, here, when you take part in an experiment than involves an MRI (especially of the head), there is a checkbox on the form that asks whether you want to informed about any funny things in the images at all just in case.
I could only wish that excessive and redundant commenting was somewhere in the top five problems I face in writing software.
No. The latter is much more faster and efficient way. Also great way to say f you to the childish smart-ass person.
See my sibling post. TCP keep-alive can work, but you probably need to fiddle with OS-default settings for modern network equipment. I personally find the behaviour abhorrent, but my beard has more grey in it every day and I've accept that "this is how it is now"
I have seen it vary by city with Houston drivers bordering on homicidal, Dallas being no-nonsense fast (with many left lane hogs), and Austin being a bit too easy going (plus many left lane hogs). I miss MN - people sure (used to) drive nice up there. One thing to keep in mind is that trucks and giant SUVs rule the roost here so if you are driving a smaller car, things will generally look scary.