skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> "Whoever took MH370 was determined, aggressive, and far more sophisticated than investigators have been willing to contemplate. They have also succeeded in fooling officials, the public, and most of the press for half a decade. That’s an uncomfortable prospect, and one that many people would prefer to ignore. But if it’s true—or even possibly true—then it’s something that needs to be dealt with expeditiously. Because that could mean whoever took MH370 is still out there...and nothing whatsoever has been done to stop them."

This just reads like so much conspiracy theory. I just cannot figure out the motivation behind anyone to do this, knowing what we know. Given that, the whole article just feels... thin. I know it's Jeff Wise pushing his book full of this, so maybe I shouldn't be surprised, and perhaps his well-founded take on it is in there. Perhaps not.
Please forgive my ignorance. I taught myself C/C++/python/etc. enough to get paid well to do it. There is of course a ton of easily accessible examples and documents for these languages. Does the same apply to FORTRAN/COBOL? Are there emulators to use to teach yourself? If you were to do this where would you start?
> "Keeping up with with new technologies" is generally a euphemism for "uses a random set of frameworks I chose".

This is a great point. I feel the same at work where a buzzword laden framework is more valuable than directly using a library underneath that framework.
> The expectation in the industry is that Senior people would be even better at it, because of their years of experience.

The fact that a person with years of experience solves an interview question more slowly than a fresh out of college grad should be a huge red flag that our interview questions are bullshit and don't reflect real world challenges.
I'd be interested to learn what sort of demographic you come from (privacy is paramount obviously) and what sort of demographic you find at these events. I don't believe I've ever traveled in a social circle that would openly engage in something like this so I'm curious as to what one would look like.
Eavesdropping: To secretly listen to a conversation.

The title is accurate. It's currently not the best or completely practical, but this type of attack will likely have room for improvement.
The thing that would cause that is if there is some requirement for massive amounts of difficult to obtain data that is required to build a competitive system.

I do think data is a competitive advantage right now. But I find it really hard to believe that 10 years from now it will be harder to build a self driving system than today. That's just not how tech is. Building YouTube was a herculean endeavor 15 years ago, but today you can hack a YouTube clone together in hours.

Not just will we have more off the shelf software and hardware, but maybe you can license the data too.

In the end, I don't see the moat around a self driving cab company. If someone has a good app and a single car that operates in my area, why not switch to them?

Sure there are wait times and availability in odd places. But that doesn't inhibit a startup getting early adopters. You could literally just do the same commutes every day and have a profitable business.

Lastly, I expect the variety in vehicles and "mobile spaces" will provide a huge landscape of opportunity that a single company will not be able to fill. Just like there is not one "housing" company, there won't be one mobile housing company either. Too much variation in taste and preference.
Don't get me wrong, I use and love a lot of terminal-based software. But from an information density perspective, my computer can display seven 80 column terminals over a hundred rows tall at once. Also, my keyboard is not awful, so I can actually do a lot of typing very quickly. For the occasions where I need a mouse or graphics they're readily available.

So echoes of, but not at all constrained like, computers from that era.
If you think newer “technology” (re: programming language or framework) is superior to older “technology” – you are likely agist, and part of the problem.
To my eyes just having generics and hiding away pointers and vtables make them very high level, but I think my argument was more about what is coming with the language (aka their standard libraries) and I've definitely seen people ignore the available libraries, even in python.
Agreed! That's a huge, but somewhat separate problem. I'm more than happy to pay for UBI of it leads to happier people and a healthier planet in this case. I don't think there is a way around it if automation continues to improve.
Good luck avoiding having your data collected by facebook via third parties, and good luck avoiding the effects it has on the society you live in.
For unmanned for cargo delivery it makes a lot of sense and could be revolutionary. But putting a man on it doesn't make so much sense; whoever was standing on top would be a very noisy obvious target and even if that weren't the case the case, the system would probably create a ton of casualties anyway just from people getting too excited and crashing it.
Air conditioning was not a rarity in TX from mid-60's or at latest mid-70s onward.

this has far more to do with Dell computer/TI/IBM/etc. reinvesting locally into developing
UT grads into tech hub, UT as grid supercomputing facility, 'insourcing' SV devwork, and
insane local promotion by hollywood/sv/media/local investors into SXSW festival which brought more attention/tech growth to
the area. Most of this has happend from mid-90s onward, esp. post dotcom bubble- prior to this Austin was mostly a sleepy college town and local administrative center supporting a state economy more centered around oil/gas and agriculture in houston/dallas
And that's only one way eh? Do 1 round-trip private trip a month and suddenly that's 24-people's worth of yearly emissions.
I wonder how far you can take the "electronic form"...

Could you compress it, base64 it, hex encode it, then base64 encode it again (this time URL-safe), then hex encode it, etc? I wonder what kind of response that would elicit heh.
Correct on the numbers, but the conclusions don't necessarily follow

> Most of the harm of unemployment is psychological, not material. Holding income constant, the employed are much happier than the unemployed. Hence, no sensible person would want to see U.S. workers’ wages rise by 10% if the unemployment rate rose 3.5 percentage-points as a result. 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.

If the goal is to improve happiness through applied economics then you should measure happiness, not make ad hoc justifications based on some other metric
> How do you know that you're getting enough of all the different micronutrients?

How do you?
How long have you been at it? I've heard conflicting reports of hormonal and micro-nutrient issues with heavy long term use, but it's almost always anecdotal.
I use tutanota.com
Wow this author sounds smug.

> Most of the harm of unemployment is psychological, not material. Holding income constant, the employed are much happier than the unemployed.

This doesn't factor in that employed workers might be much happier in countries where they can work without the possibility of being fired at any moment for no reason hanging over their heads.
>Which assumes that we know what "colonised" looks like.

100% my problem with this. We're applying a human-centric lens to this. Remember that these theories are based on a life-form that evolved completely separate from anything we have ever known. That doesn't just mean separate body structures, but an entirely novel and completely unknowable circumstance.

This is why these theories all upset me - they should all say things like "we should have seen (an alien species that is similar to us) in this amount of time.

Because fuck only knows what an alien who evolved in a system based on helium or some other gas would think. We certainly can't try to figure it out. The most creative minds in this area are those writing hard sci-fi, I would argue. And most of them only treat that subject with a hand-waving and 'we can never know those mysterious aliens' sort of thing.
There's every chance this is true. Except I just checked the listing, and it's now $181.
Like some British ship visiting some pacific island circa 1800 "Yup, just some birds, palm trees and nothing particularly useful here, note the location in the log and move on."
Frugality gets a bad rap because most people, like the person you're replying to, advocate depriving themselves of as much as possible for the sake of not spending money - like dying with the highest score is the goal. Frugality, to me at least, should instead be working on how your money can make you the most secure and the most happy, both now and in the future.
Right. Maybe it just shows that the interviewer is too inexperienced to ask questions that are relevant.
My bank upgraded their branch ATMs to accept multiple checks at the same time for deposits. What surprised me was the displayed instructions said one did not need to sign the backs.
They hired a lot of engineers working on internal stuff. Probably will have a large layoff round to reduce costs.
So far. Perhaps there are ways for it to still be useful, regardless. For example, you might care more about the binary state of sound vs no sound (learning the hours that someone or something is in operation).

It’s also really freaking cool, and an amazing way to make something that’s created for one purpose into a seemingly unrelated one.
Expectation: solves leetcode on the fly, the job will involve leetcode only.

Reality: piles of legacy code that requires deep insight into product, legal, and marketing details to understand and untangle.

Guess which one leetcode script kiddies will suck at?
Vision alone fails pretty frequently even with a human brain and 700 million years of evolution behind it. Count me as a skeptic that cameras + computer will produce a safe self-driving system.
I think the answer is that CPU time doesn't have consistently high value to the CPU owner, and isn't a free market as CPU time is non-transferable due to security concerns.

It isn't practical to buy compute power from a diverse set of CPU owners, because any of them may be malicious, and this problem only increases with scale. The only exceptions are cases where you can afford or mitigate malicious CPU owners, which doesn't lend itself to general computing.
>Perhaps it might be better if younger programmers learned the old stuff instead of just badly reinventing the wheel every few years.

That's pure gold. Not to say there haven't been advances--there certainly have been. But, there's also the issue of the shininess of new tech giving it undue cred, while simultaneously translating to an outsized denigration of the tech it purports to replace.

Frankly, a lot of these problems have been solved, and solved well.

Look at NoSQL as an example. There are certainly use cases for it, but then people went nuts, exclaiming things like "RDBMS must die" and touting no ACID transactions as a feature/benefit. Then, you get the trickle of reports that maybe NoSQL wasn't the best choice for this or that.

Finally, fast-forward to 2018 and you have announcements from MongoDB that they now support ACID transactions.

Many older coders have seen enough of these cycles, and have adopted a justifiably-cynical posture of "wait for it...".
I have a hard time understanding the benefit of putting flu related medicine. They have benefit for a very very limited part of very weak population, and even for children and old people, the flu rarely dangerous, and when it is, not more than the 1000 other stuff that could hurt them.

In the end, I feel like it's more an economic reason we pursue this: a lot of people get the flu often, so it's a large market.
Very well put. As technology replaces more of the medicinal busywork and ostensibly even diagnosis, more emphasis should be placed on the doctor being the human element. In the end, that's what humans are good at. While I'm sure it was well intentioned, this technology tries to replace the one thing that machines cannot (yet, maybe ever?) provide: authentic human interaction and empathy.

I find it comical actually, in a grotesque way. It's a situation I would expect in the Simpsons: family huddled around a very ill relative, when the door opens and a tragic robot vaguely reminiscent of a Dyson vacuum cleaner rolls in and announces that the patient is going to die in short order.

The entire scene could be more bizarre only if upon this announcement, a small tray popped open with a tranquilizer pill that expedites the demise of the suffering person and prints a receipt for the "care" rendered.
> for every anecdotal old-guy that hates Electron

Any sane person with half a brain hates Electron.

(Not that there are any good alternatives, but still...)
You can replace Google/Amazon/Facebook in seconds.

You can not change your cable provider in a large number of areas, and even many of the ones that you can, you only have 2 choices between Comcast/Verizon/ATT/Centurylink.

And, miraculously, as soon as a competitor arrives, you see prices drop and speeds increase. It happened in just about every area Google fiber rolled out to.

Comcast also charge $10 for an extra 50GB of data after hitting the cap, and Comcast just happens to own a major network (which if you stream your tv shows, you won't be watching). It just seems incredibly clear that Comcast and other cable companies are clearly taking advantage of their monopoly status at the expense of customers, which is exactly when trust busting is supposed to come into play.
That doesn't scale, though. If everyone does that then you're going to be stuck in traffic all the time.
But they all had technical founders/co-founders? Thats what I think OP's question was related to?
Anthony Levandowski seems to have the same opinion. I'm a big believer in vision, it'll be interesting to see how it plays out.
Sounds like me and my ex-wife. We're good friends, but that's it, and I wasn't willing to keep living like that. (We also had some serious points of conflict that made living in the same house unhappy.)
According to a conspiracy minded friend, there was a lot of gold on board that would have been well worth stealing. I’ve also seen the theory put forth that the plane was stolen in order to crash it into Ukraine, frame the Russians for shooting it down, and turn international opinion against them.

(To be clear, I think both of these are completely looney tunes, but it’s what I’ve heard.)
Maybe if you're in CA. Most other places in the US are less than $0.14/kWh.
People in big prosperous states should absolutely pay for infrastructure in other states and they already do. States like California, Texas, and New York pay far more in federal taxes than they receive back in funding. They pay for roads in Iowa and social security checks in Vermont. It's because they are not islands but part of a nation. Sure they might have to pay "more" but it's because if it were not for the nation as a whole, that prosperity wouldn't be there to begin with. If you take this argument down to an individual level, why should we even pay taxes if we'd all be "better off" not paying taxes? It's because we'd all have far less wealth to tax if we didn't have the roads, schools, healthcare, and yes, public transportation that they fund.

Public transit just isn't a waste of money by just about any measurement. The travel and density it enables produces far more economic value than the cost of construction. By international standards, the high speed rail in California is quite expensive and they should be working on ways to bring that cost in line with other countries. But at the end of the day, California would be better off with high speed rail in the long term. Take New York City. They would be far less wealthy if they didn't have a subway system. You would need far more roads, cars, and infrastructure to support that population if it weren't for the subways. Everyone there would be poorer for it. By that same token, cities like LA and San Fransisco could be far wealthier if they had public transit that matched their population and density. Creating far more wealth and taxes dollars that can be used to subsidize those roads in Iowa or social security checks in Vermont, benefiting everyone.
There was a recent podcast by Chris Hayes on this topic with Kashmir Hill. It's not as easy to avoid FAANG as one would expect at first glance.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/how-block-big-tech-kas...
Sure, if you are comparing new construction luxury apples to new constrution luxury apples.

step away from things built post 2008 mortgages and still leveraged to the hilt and the real picture becomes more clear
It's uncontroversial to say Net Neutrality is pro-consumer on HN because we're the people who know the technical aspects of the concept; it's uncontroversial anywhere people know what it's about.

But the point is well made. We can't be breaking up companies that don't do what we want, if they're playing by the rules.

The real answer is to change the rules. Warren is running on some populist anger, and that's a dangerous thing to praise.
I'm 40 and making the most money I've ever made in my career, fighting off hiring managers begging me to interview, and doing the most exciting work of my career. Also, you should leave the bay area now, not later. Your crazy money is getting eaten away by living expenses and you could have higher discretionary income in a smaller tech hub, and you could buy a house now and build equity instead of renting in the bay area.
The older I get, the more 'liberal' I get.

I think it comes from having more and more empathy.

The more I live, the less I feel I can judge people and their choices. Even if it is to prefer Mongo over Postgres :-)
> So you agree with me that there have been secret accusations and secrets courts handling this case for almost a decade now,

No. I don't agree that regular criminal courts become secret courts simply because, as a matter of the 5th Amendment rights of the accused, a grand jury indictment, which is the result of a secret process, must be returned prior to filing certain charges.

Nor do I agree that such process has occurred on any particular timeline, though I'd be surprised if law enforcement didn't investigate Assange and WikiLeaks thoroughly in that time; I have no idea when they first empaneled a grand jury related to WikiLeaks and whether any indictments have been issued under seal.

I strongly suspect that Assange has, at some point, been indicted under seal, but I don't think that process took any significant fraction of a decade, unless they're have been multiple superseding indictments, all sealed, and in any case that's just a strong suspicion that it has even occurred at all.

> that everyone who brought this up was right and that everyone who called this a conspiracy theory was a completely and utterly wrong?

No one called the idea that he might have a sealed indictment, alone, a conspiracy theory.

The conspiracy theory was that the Swedish rape charges were a result of US pressure on Sweden, that a secret extradition conspiracy existed with Sweden, and they extradition to Sweden was a front for him to be extradited to the US.

If the US wanted him extradited, a regular open extradition request to the UK would be simpler and more effective; there's no plausible reason for the Swedish roundabout theory.

> It is not about this one trial here.

That's true because this is not a trial. It's a grand jury investigation, the thing that happens before there are charges, and before there can be a trial.
As a lifelong liberal, I've sunk into despair at the firehose of hatred coming from the left these days. And I talk to far fewer of my old lefty friends anymore--if they've made themselves awful, I just don't want to know. I'd prefer to remember them as they were.

Maybe this is just a phase, but it feels like we're going to a place from which we won't return.
Youre saying censorship is bad right?

Here's the thing. Facebook already editorializes in two ways. First its community standards, and second its algorithm. THEY CHOOSE what to put at the top (first thousand) results of your feed.

They dont need to censor what people post to make BETTER decisions about what floats to the top. They just need to do a better job of prioritizing and placing better content. It is out there and it exists, surface it. They want to APPEAR impartial, as if your newsfeed is just what your friends post, BUT they are still deciding which posts are more important than the others. They are using the wrong signals to float the cream.

The question is less is censorship bad, and more "can/should fb better own that it is NOT impartial, and IS injecting its voice into people's conversations." If facebook wants to be impartial, then step back and act like an infrastructure, and if it wants to have a say in community standards, fucking own it and do a better job of judging what is worthy of the top of a feed.
The simple hedge of eating a variety of foods, plus medical wisdom around simple things like iodine that have eliminated certain deficiencies.

By definition you don't need micronutrients often, so you don't need to eat a lot of them every day, which is what makes the variety scheme work.
Dear [TEMPLATE_NAME], We're sorry to inform you that you have advanced stage cancer and will die in the next [TEMPLATE_TIME_RANGE]. Good news however. We have partnered with FinalResting! Be sure to click on the following link to save up to 25% off your funeral services.
I completely agree. I'm not giving a rant about society re-inventing the wheel, I'm talking at a personal level. If I know language X, but I'm trying to learn language Y, I have to learn how to do things that I already know how to do in X. It's a change that HAS to happen to learn, and I'll walk away a better coder, but that doesn't make the process of relearning any more enjoyable or more productive.

I switched jobs recently and tried to adopt a zen-like attitude of beginners mind. It definitely helped...but I'd be lying if I said I never hit frustration points where I'm trying to go from A to C but I have to learn all about B when I don't WANT to care about B, I want to get to C. A good attitude helps, but I think the underlying reason is still true and is part of why experienced devs aren't adopting new tech at the rate of newer devs.
Thanks! Let us know if you have any feedback
Maybe Tesla knows better than Google and Uber and GM and Toyota and Volvo...

Or maybe they've gone down a blind alley in their rush to look like they were first to market.
I think another point of the article (that I at least read into, maybe too much, I am not sure) was that having merit/skill is luck based in itself. To give an example, whenever I play a video game with my friends, they are usually a lot better than I am. I play probably just as much as them but they are inherently better. I don't think either of us worked harder, we all play roughly the same games and all grew up playing together. I am just not as good at them. Was this me not working as hard/harder as them or was it them being lucky and they were born good at those particular skills? I feel like my skill cap at the games we play are much lower than them and they usually rank much higher than me even though we put in the same amount of hours. Personally, I would say it is luck.
Do you somehow choose to avoid everything hosted on AWS? How do you avoid the wider societal effects of Facebook, and how do you avoid their collection of data on you via third parties?
I've lived in both places. You're on glue.
Biggest expenses are keeping driver supply high in new cities until the service adoption gets traction among consumers, and customer support / fraud mitigation (again, primarily in new cities).

For the most part, established cities are profitable (at least for Uber, I don't know the story for Lyft).