skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> I'm not following; are you saying that it's easier to have a ONS now?

I'm married man, but I grew up when online dating just started, when I was in high school we used AIM to meet girls. I would meet up with girls in different school districts that I would of never met a few years prior. I'm told from young men a bit younger than I that's it's even easier than that now. Highly attractive young men can not leave their house all day and still meet several new women sometimes from hours away. My feeling is that's going to have some sort of effect on the culture as those young people settle down into more stable relationships as often happens.
Jokes aside, hearing a sound directly from a low orbit is a thing [0]. Only problem is, the sound has to be extremely loud.

[0] https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/grl...
Perhaps it shares a root with serendipity?

Both seem related to a kind of intelligent mindfulness.
I suspect because statistically programmers are in their editor, they're just a distraction away from playing with elisp.
Approximately until it stops selling.
Didn't directly hurt anyone in an easily quantifiable way.

It's not clear that Uber or Lyft are net positives to society. They are disruptive, but not necessarily in a good way.

Yes, they provided $8B worth of rides. But before that people still got around. What the world might have been like without Lyft is impossible to know, but the way it's changed the job landscape isn't exactly a huge net positive. It's put a lot of cars on the road and it's set to new "floor" for jobs in general. Uber, Lyft, Taskrabbit, DoorDash have created a new kind of serfdom.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing, necessarily, but I wouldn't say that they didn't hurt anyone. They definitely hurt social progress.
Academics propose UK alternative to Galileo at 3% of the cost
Why do you think "sales engineering" is fluff?
Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sales_engineering
> Isn't Intellisense predictive typing?

No. Intellisense tells you a list of options based on type inspection and then optionally autocompletes from the set of options. It just says that if you type A and then a dot, according to the grammar of the language, you then must be about to type a member of A. But it's not predictive, because you literally just told the system that you're about to type a member of A by typing A and then a dot.
Trying to Become a Developer Advocate. My Path, and How to Improve?
I chose this community because I assumed that among the readers there will be some of you who have gone through this before and maybe are Developer Advocates now. I'm hoping that my asking this question will be a helpful discussion to other people who are on a similar boat as I.

Below I will explain my experience depth & breadth, hoping, that this will show my colorful and plentiful image (or lack off) when applying for Developer Advocate roles. Any input you might have on this regard will be of great help.

I double majored in Computer Science and Mathematics from 2009 to 2013. Throughout the semesters of my bachelors I also worked as an IT Technician (3 years, 20 hours per week).

Undergraduate Intern:
Scripting Intern in Industry (3 months)
Research in Physics (3 months)
Research in Computer Engineering (3 months).

Graduate School:
Research Assistant (3 years, 20 hrs per week),
Full Stack Software Engineer (3 years, 20 hrs per week)

Industry after masters:
Software Associate in Research Consulting - (7 months) - Read 10’s of thousands of patents, research articles, journals, academia, on a weekly basis to dig evidence for patent layers involved in massive software litigation, patent infringement cases (Facebook, Microsoft, Starbucks). It was as fun as it sounds.

Senior Client Services Engineer (1.5 years) - Implemented cloud software solutions for a consulting company. Wore many hats and worked on understanding specific requirements by discussing solutions with developers, customers, sales, etc.

Software Engineer Mid-Senior Level for WellKnownSoftwareCompany (1 year) - Implementing REST API’s for user data and infrastructure capabilities for a highly available (99.99%) state of the art architecture.

What would it take on top of this experience in order to land a Developer Advocate role, or even an interview?!

If you have any suggestions on how I should proceed on this path to becoming a Developer Advocate please share them.
What about the moose that spent 20 minutes rescuing a chipmunk from drowning in a barrel? Or the dog who held out a stick for another dog to grab onto and escape the rapids?

There are plenty of other examples of this, I’m sure; these two came to mind first because they were caught on video. What drives that behavior if not empathy?
It's only the beginning: https://github.com/ForwardCom
Occam's Razor says the reason why your dog looks and acts guilty is that it feels guilty, rather than carrying out some sort of autonomous response that looks exactly like guilt but for whatever reason doesn't cross a certain threshold of self-awareness to deserve to be called Actual Emotion.
I would assume that you'd read the relevant documents prior to commenting.

Scroll down to "United States", click on the reference links next to each illegal domestic surveillance programs. If the link yields another wiki page, keep clicking on the reference links util you find the relevant documents.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_mass_surv...
Maybe:

- You don't have a self driving car.

- You don't have a car, period.

- You're stranded somewhere or don't have your car with you.

- You don't want to deal with parking.
Their 7% stake has pro-rata and YC publicly states that it will follow-on to maintain that ownership up to $300m valuation.

The 7% ownership also allows YC Continuity to be more attractive to later stage companies. If YC already has a 7% stake, then it only needs to invest an additional post-money 13% in order to raise its ownership to 20%. A new firm coming to the cap table would want to invest 20% post-money. So, if the company doesn't need 20% capital, then YC Continuity has a significant advantage.
They may be creating stuff but it's constrained by input and UI built to be unintimidating versus efficient for experts. Aside from the lowest common denominator UI designs, touch screens and OSKs are terrible compared to mice and keyboards for human-to-computer bandwidth and precision. Those who disagree usually (in my experience) have no basis for comparison, never having reached proficiency with any keyboard+mouse centric creation tools.
No linux client
> a study of Standard Oil is really instructive

Judging by the downvotes I got for mentioning it, you and I must be the only ones on HN that think so.
Really? Even if it proven animal have emotions, I still won't have any problem eating meat.
I feel like even this narrative only comments on the centralization of processing, rather than the complexity required to be conscious. I wonder how much of the time spent without sentience, as you put it, is more akin to the diffuse processing in octopii arms or the gut-brain relationship.
What about the 4% rule (put it in an index fund and hope for an average 7% return, leave 3% for inflation and live off the rest)? I always figured that would work out to $50k per year per mil. Is that naive?

Edit: sorry for the ninja edit. I read your comment too quickly.
src https://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/CO2-wird-zu-Kohle-be...
I am not disputing the fact that many animals experience emotions and consciousness just as we do. I was taking issue with the parent comment's framing of our attitudes as "just human conceit". I am saying that conceitedness is the same as the emotional and other mental phenomena that we are discussing - it is shared by all animals.

Occasionally, we can overcome the conceitedness. I think that makes us special.
Interesting, I was just starting to dig into geiser as well! (But for Gerbil scheme, though Kawa is interesting to me as well)
Please someone at YC invented meat-alike alternatives so we don't eat animals for the sake of everything.

Not really an animal lover, just think we don't really need consume animal meat to live longer/happier, there got be some other options.
Isn’t that part of the Unix Way?

Not expecting it not to break, but building tools that depend on the undocumented text output of other tools that.
I need more of this as well. Comments, books... whatever.

Even if it isn't real its a fascinating and beautiful story.
Again, I mentioned that meritocracy hasn't been successful for every single demographic. My whole point is that meritocracy does uplift poor minorities when effort is put in. Don't get me wrong it almost certainly takes more effort for a poor minority to succeed than a rich person - I've been reiterating this since my original comment. But meritocracy does provide a ladder to lift groups out of poverty in a manner that society as a whole seems fair. I think you recognize this when you reference "tiger moms" as part of the reasons why Asians have succeeded.

The fact that it hasn't worked for Blacks in America doesn't alter the fact that is has worked for Irish, Germans, Asians, Jews, and Latinos. One can make a decent claim that more minorities have benefitted from meritocracy than have been left behind.
This thread defines 'whataboutism'. It's supposed to be about Warren's new 3 page tech regulation bill but has more than 600 comments rehashing telecom regulation issues discussed thousands of times, without engaging a single point raised by Warren. This looks like a derail.

There are urgent issues with Google and monopoly, search, chrome, amp, android and youtube and once you combine that with Facebook a toxic predatory surveillance capitalism model based on harvesting and collating private data to build dossiers that is ominous for any free society.

But for the tech community on the frontlines of this project the old issues of Comcast and Verizon unresolved inspite of decades of heated debate are more urgent. If anyone doubted Upton Sinclars famous insight here is the evidence.
as a somewhat related tangent, i tend to say of dogs (at least) that they're "first-order humans", as they seem to have similar emotions that are somehow more straightforward and predictable, much like a toddler. negotiating life with a dog is at one level of complexity, while negotiating life with other humans is exponentially (figuratively rather than mathematically) more complex.

like humans, you can read so much in the micro-movements of a dog's eyes, nose, lips and ears.
My work issued me a pre-iPad tablet computer, the NEC Versa Litepad.

I agree with what you said, but part of the problem was resistive touchscreens just weren’t very good.
Code is on GitHub: https://github.com/pudelkoM/MoonWire

It's not designed for any kind of production use and we have no plans to develop this further.
It's only a quick and dirty example implementation of several possible architectures to get some ideas about the performance impacts of architectural design decisions.

Also, it's academic code, that means it's poorly documented and designed to run only the benchmarks that we needed. (But I do think it's above average quality for academic code)
How to pass a programming interview (2016)
"And psychology aside, remember that the welfare state forces active workers to support the idle. So when regulation forces wages up, even the lucky workers who keep their jobs ultimately forfeit much of what they gain."

Even a doubling in unemployment claims would be drop in the bucket compared to pension liabilities.
No, it won't. Meat has everything the body needs.

Owsley Stanley was a soundman for the Grateful Dead. He also had one other claim to fame… he ate nothing but meat for 47 years. Let me repeat that, he ate nothing but meat for FORTY-SEVEN YEARS. He wrote all about his diet on a low-carb forum back in 2006. He died in a car accident not too long after but his words of wisdom still live on. You can read how he came to the conclusion that the natural human diet is a totally carnivorous one. It is fascinating reading and I have read it (over 300 pages) multiple times.

Read it here: https://eatmeatdrinkwater.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/the-be...
It saves us frequent users of C++/python from ourselves :P
> Ducks and humans alike would appear just to be going through the motions.

The crux of the human condition is that we are aware of our own mortality. That's a profound awareness which breeds all sorts of irrationalities and fears in humans not found in ducks. If those are just the motions, then I suppose we may have gotten the short end of the stick perhaps?
The FART train?
Yeah, this is how I see it, too. Their example kind of gives away that they didn't understand.

Once you've learned and used a half-dozen imperative languages day-to-day, there's very little new when picking up another imperative language. It's mostly mapping common concepts onto new syntax, plus some new features and maybe quirks/gotchas.

Silly little example: After an hour of reading a Go tutorial, and having never looked at the language before, I was able to diagnose a bug a co-worker had been struggling with for two hours, because I recognized the pattern from something similar in Django (a python framework). Now knowing what to look for, a quick Google search had the exact answer to the problem right in the first result.
Yes actually I do when it’s an animal I hunted myself, butchered and later prepared. I think you touch on the problem though, since grocery store meat does not elicit such response from me and everyone else.
Update: More hospitals affected by vendor data breach
But he didn't say he they would never again be in romantic relationships. Just that he didn't expect to enter another marriage agreement. I have older friends just like this. They divorced long ago, and the man's had one single girlfriend/partner ever since. He and GF live separately, but are together almost every day. They will never marry, because it would be pointless, and they carry far too much baggage to move in together; they're too particular about their space, too set in their routines, and have obligations that they don't care to subject each other to.

I guess what I'm saying is that marriage and relationship are two different things. Institutional marriage offers some legal and financial advantages, and in some cases it's important as a way to fortify a couple's commitment. But in many relationships, like my friends', it serves no useful purpose.
> I wonder if there's a way to start from scratch. Build a planned city with a focus on having a dense urban environment and lots of public transportation. It must be more cost-efficient than trying to keep adding to existing cities that don't really want the growth.

The kind of geography suitable for city building hasn't really changed that much since the dawn of civilization, and while the specific spots with that Geographic do change over time somewhat, the best places (and everything pretty far down the list) are taken. Starting from scratch most likely means starting with a big location disadvantage, unless you are exploiting some recent change that has created newly-suitable land.
> The search API call doesn't require anything more than Lat and Long: https://developer.foursquare.com/docs/api/venues/search

That Lat+Long, the implied time of the venue search call, and some type of disambiguation user id is all you'd need to start building a location history for someone.
I left the Bay Area almost 5 years ago now to start a company that I spun out of Los Alamos National Laboratory. Everyone - investors, my friends & family, our founders, even me - thought we would move to San Francisco within a year.

Four years later, Descartes Laba is almost 100 people strong, $38M investes, and thriving in the Land of Enchantment.

The reality is that if you have a strong mission, a viable company, and a great place to live, you can build a company. Sure, we can't hire anyone from Silicon Valley, but that's ok. Our recruiting team looks in all of the places FANG isn't looking - and we've found some incredible talent.

I hope that it's not just major cities that see this Renaissance of tech, but cities across America and the world. This is how we transform society with technology - by bringing a wider audience into the conversation.
Thanks for that. It brought back some memories!

One point though, looking back at both those phases of my life, I noticed that I became aware of my snobbery only after I could afford everything, not while I was going through the tough times.
Developers who have to work with actual responsibilities need to take those edge cases "you won't see" into account.
It isn't going to be a immediate and simple switch with everyone suddenly having self-driving tech at their fingertips. It will come into the market slowly and very likely at the top of the market. There are going to be plenty of people who simply can't afford to purchase a new self-driving car but would be happy to use one through a ride-sharing app.

In the long term, self-driving decrease the need for even owning a car. Why make that huge investment when a car can always be available to you within minutes with a few clicks in an app? It then would make more sense for those large investments to be made centrally by the Ubers, Lyfts, Waymos, Teslas, Apples, etc of the world. In the distant future I would bet driving eventually ends up like flying is today with only the ultra-affluent and hobbyist owning their own vehicles and everyone else just paying per use.
Iranian hackers ransack Citrix, makeoff with 6TB+ of emails,internal secrets
The fact that we have never observed other intelligent life does not it doesn’t exist. The unimaginable size of the universe leads me to believe that our special set of conditions are possible elsewhere, though it might be exceedingly rare. And because of this, we will never know about it anyway. You might say that’s the same as it not existing at all, but that’s a question for philosophers braver than I.

One of the scariest thoughts I have ever had is that we truly are alone, but the sheer size of the universe makes me feel slightly better about that prospect.
We can, without lapsing into full panpsychism, state some ethical paradoxes about the way we can observe animal emotion, versus the way we actually treat animals.

For example, it's widely accepted that pigs are extremely intelligent animals, capable of feeling pain and suffering to a degree more sophisticated even than young children.

And yet treating young children with the same level of disregard-for-suffering that we routinely, banally treat pigs with is considered a capital crime.

At a certain point, we'll have to resolve this societal cognitive dissonance. I strongly suspect it will end up being resolved with animals being granted a far greater degree of legal protection from pain and suffering than they have now.
They spend money, you spend time. Maybe they find your expense wasteful.
Whoops, that's embarrassing. I was thinking it was Denmark and then copied and pasted the article and typed out my response while I was doing something else. People good at multitasking: not me.
I can answer this from my own experience after having been vegan for 5ish years (but I am decidedly not now). There are two things at play: the more "justified" first thing is I'm politically active and still maintain an interest in animal welfare, but I'm focusing the energy I have for activism on systemic changes and participating in/enabling mass action rather than focusing on individual choices, which often act as a release valve for important political discontent without directly confronting the systemic causes. The less noble second thing is that, given the American food supply chain, it's simply still more of a burden and less pleasant to eat vegan as well as easy to not think about when making food choices.
There are always hidden assumptions. The proof only applies up to half-omniscience being that know everything in the current and past of the universe, but not in the future.

As a less powerful entity, if you know all the result in the lab until now, you can consider an experiment made 1 hour ago and "predict" the outcome without breaking the laws of quantum mechanics.
It's always been a really rich environment, but it's amazing how much dynamism the whole ecosystem gained by introducing package.el and ELPA, plus to a lesser extent use-package.

Without package management, keeping even relatively simple Emacs setups working was not that easy. Now, it's trivial. And thanks to that lots of parts have been modernized and the whole community is really vibrant.

Emacs has now a really nice completion framework (avy) and auto-complete (company). Plus, IMHO the best git porcelain of any platform (magit), outliner (org) and mail user agent (notmuch, plus some bits of gnus).
The weirdest thing about the "do animals have emotions" debate is that we now know that the emotion-handling parts of the brain (the limbic system, particularly the amygdala) are shared by not only by all mammals but also by reptiles and birds. The limbic system is ancient and fairly well-preserved; there's not much special in a human amygdala compared to a mouse one.
Steven Spielberg bought the film rights to MLK's speeches
You could use rejection sampling to simply drop the digits that are 8 or 9, then you'd have a base 8 number to work with.
We're talking about protected classes here, and I don't think it's equally unacceptable. On a fundamental level, inherent characteristics (race) are very different from ideas (speech). So I think you can be in favor of anti-discrimination on basis of who you are, while also being against beliefs becoming a protected class.

Though, just so you know where I'm coming from, in my ideal world it would be strong social and business pressures that enforced the idea of protected classes, not regulation. I'd support any competitor which was more ethical, but complex issue.
Empathy is an emotion experienced by both humans and animals. I don't dispute that. But I don't believe that empathy requires intellectual awareness of the inner life of other creatures, or generalizing that to all animals as we are. Empathy is an emotional reaction, like rage at a perceived slight, and does not require thought.
Statistics suggest that there is at least 1 planet per star. Multi-planetary systems are the norm, not a rarity.

There is a huge amount of observational bias in exoplanet research and given that we've "only" found a few thousand planets, it's naive to think our Solar System is unique. It's practically certain that with better instruments we'll find new planets in currently known systems.

For example HD_10180 (7 planets currently) also has two potential gas giants. See also HD 219134.

Also: stats of 100 billion to one, those are reasonable odds. That would make two species in the Milky Way, let alone the other billions-trillions of galaxies in the Universe.
I completely agree. I was just responding that linking is intimately related to the ISA, which is relevant since the FowardCom info states that it does not support dynamic linking and instead all objects are instead relinkable (in the same way static linkers work). If you design an ISA with that mindset it is quite easy to omit instructions necessary to do efficient dynamic linking.
What's the problem? If a a robot can drive a car more statistically more safely than a human, that seems like a net win.

Maybe humans shouldn't be making left turns in traffic or passing trucks either. Those are probably, statistically, the most dangerous things you can do when driving. But we do them all the time, because we have no idea how dangerous they really are.
I think to age well you have to consistently push your limits. "Learning new things" and "keeping up with tech" is a bit overrated.

If you're 50 and you've spent many years drilling down through increasingly deep scalability and throughput challenges, that will increase your value beyond what any fresh-out could provide.

If instead you spent your time learning a new JS framework each year and are proficient at 30 of them by age 50, good for you, but good luck finding a job.