skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Don’t work on promises. Get projects down on paper with clear terms, and have your clients sign. Until you do so, all the talk in the world is worthless.

I wish it expanded more on this. Some questions:

- when you're remote, do you print the contract, sign it, scan it, send it, and have the client do the same? or do you send 2 physical copies via DHL or something? or do you just rely on a "looks good!" reply to an email detailing the terms?

- what's the typical practice in the freelance market on using contracts? I mean, when you're working remote from a country different from your client's, I imagine it's pretty difficult to write good enforceable contracts since they involve 2 very different jurisdictions. Do people typically bother trying to make good quality contracts, or are they used on the assumption that both parties will act in good-faith?

- when you're just starting out and can't really afford the services of a lawyer that can write international contracts, how do write such things on your own? some tips?

- are there standard clauses in these contracts that people expect or are they really diverse?

It would have also been cool if this talked a bit about how the interactions typically are between a freelancer and a client. I mean, I imagine there's a general protocol, right? I imagine the freelancer should guide the interactions, but what are clients' expectations? For example, what's typically used for communication? skype? plain email? Are there some etiquette rules specific to freelancing?
Sounds like this will be less damaging for photographic film? Not that the carry on x-ray scanners were bad in the first place but the less damage potential the better.
They just love to scold. It's the only time in their life they are an authority figure.
> Zarate and others are still thrilled to see big pharma investing in ketamine, after decades of stalled efforts to find new psychiatric drugs. “As esketamine hits the market, venture capitalists will come up with better versions and move the field forward,” Zarate says.

My doctor prescribes me sublingual ketamine for use at home. What we have now is good enough.

We need doctors like mine that have the courage to prescribe off label.
The lack of fear?

Not in passengers but in the officials: what if somebody sneaks something in, and blows a plane? To alleviate that, a "we are doing all we can" CYA strategy should be in place.
100% agree with you. The modern organization is so short term focused and so dedicated to purging that they do not develop leadership and cannot handle failure.

The cult of metrics breeds dumb. A big company is more like a Soviet enterprise than a functional business.
> given that service is insufficient to meet basic needs, improvements are needed

Sure, and why is it Uber's responsibility to make those improvements?
1 out of 5 people who see the demo without compensation buy the product. The only incentive they had to see the demo is that they were at least somewhat considering purchasing.

But if you start paying people, then a lot of people who have zero interest will participate just to pocket the money. Your close rate will go way way down.
How the Matrix Built a Bullet-Proof Legacy
If they tried to blackmail Bezos, then imagine how many senators and representatives they may have blackmail on. This is a true crisis.
Anyone know where this machine would stand with regards to Respects Your Freedom [1] certification barriers?

[1] https://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/endorsement/respects-your-f...
Elizabeth Warrens right-to-repair plan fails to consider data from IoT equipment
Yeah, it would have.

It's just that the ghost of my 5th grade English teacher would have emerged from the mists to point out that "they" is plural, whereas I was referring to an individual. Can't win.
> low addiction potential

nah, K is terribly moreish.
>Sorry-not-sorry, for assuming people are not idiots.

Being uninformed (because a system is complex) and/or acting irrationally (because of financing stress) are not aptly described as "idiocy," which is a value judgement about individuals, not a description of those individuals information.

>Either they have money to pay bills or they don't. It's not that complicated.

The long term financial heath of individuals and families is complicated. Complicated by information asymmetry, financial uncertainly, and unscrupulous lenders who sell short-term solutions (like lending you money to buy a car that you have to drive to earn enough money to pay for the car -- and then dropping the rate at which you can earn to pay off the car). Usury laws exist, for example, not because people are "stupid," but because well-heeled companies can and do financially exploit people in bad positions.

Basically, driving for Uber is a bad idea and almost always not worth it financially for the drivers. And yet people do it. Not because they are idiots, but because start-ups have been able to skirt hard-won labor protections and safety laws to exploit a group of ad-hoc workers, whose time would be better spent collecting welfare checks and gaining marketable skills to land a full time position.
Pro-tip: After a six month blackout period, acquisitions are eligible for awards in the Google Vulnerability Rewards Program.

https://www.google.com/about/appsecurity/reward-program/
Yea i Bought a backpack advertised as TSA friendly that can open completely. While in theory it works, the TSA agent still yells at you to take everything out.
I am a very sweaty person, and I always get destroyed by mosquitos more than those around me. It's funny how sometimes meaningful research merely confirms things people already believe to be "obvious".
Heinlein has always polarized sci fi fans
> You want to use my free time to sell me something? Then compensate me for using up that free time or get lost.

If this isn't used widely, it's a diabolical strategy. "Hey can I give you $5 for some of your time, I have a product I really believe in and would like to tell you about it." It not only creates an expectation of reciprocity, but creates a sort of cognitive dissonance (salesmen are usually asking for money, not giving it) which is an event that is known to make people more susceptible to influence... there's probably so many reasons why this could be a viable strategy in some cases.
Neat idea. But while I don't know the instantaneous toxicity of liquid explosives, I'll conjecture that a suicide bomber might have the commitment and stomach for a wee sip of his boom juice as he passes the first gate to martyrdom.
The Lumber Cartel
That won't fly. As we, I hope, already know now the security is not only for the people on the plane.
I have yet to encounter an electronic device that doesn't emit a high frequency whine at some point.
And many other nationalities through Global Entry (GE includes TSA Pre), plus Canadians and Canadian permanent residents via NEXUS (which includes GE and through that also TSA Pre).

There was a time where what you say was true, but they've broadened access.
There is such thing as too much communication. In my previous company the whole 10 person team sat together on the open space. The result was that my coworkers (sitting 30-40 ft from me) would shout a question to me, because they were too lazy to check project Wiki page to know which environment they should deploy to, for example. Or they would shout totaly useless notifications, like "I've just created pull request, can you review it?". Open plan offices encourage this type of pathological behaviour.
I've seen the term "moral injury" be used, which I think is a better description of what usually happens.
In the US, email agreements can be enforceable contracts, but I always take the step of getting an eSignature.

My take on international contracts: Working internationally, it's pretty much all based on trust. Once you get to the point where you have a large enough contract, sure, hire lawyers then. But how is someone going to pursue, for example, a Romanian developer for $10,000? It's just not worth it.

So, if you're unsure of the client and you have no way of enforcing a contract, you could "ramp up" your agreement: Get 50% up front, do a small project or 2, break larger projects into smaller chunks paid incrementally, etc.

I've never dealt with a large client flaking, so this is all speculation from me. I hope it helps.
> It's been around long enough that people accept it as normal, it serves no other purpose than to employ the unemployable and fill contractors' coffers

It serves the purpose of removing liability for security from airlines, which is the major reason why it was created. It also serves the purpose of getting people used to progressively more intrusive government inspection during routine situations.

> and it seems that no entity is able to stop or dismantle it.

There are entities that are able to, but they don't want to, because they like what it does.
I don't get the logic in this. If your liquid is an explosive and you're planning to commit suicide with it, why would a sip of it stop you?
How could one measure the negative impact of Facebook on the scoiety? However narrowed down the definition of society was
What I can’t stand is the default practice of recording phone calls. “This call may be recorded for training purposes” with no way to opt out. Sure, I could hang up but what if I absolutely have to make that call. I don’t want my calls recorded by default, I want to be asked and the answer will always be No. If you are using my calls to make your company money by training your staff, I want to be compensated.
The moment we experience government, we see the inefficiencies, yet some people want to see government get larger.

I just cannot understand the logic.
First government survey of hikikomori
Watch out you are treading perilously close to one of the "things you can't say"[1] in the context of this site. Some people block people on twitter for implying just this sort of thing...

1. http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
I don't get your point. If two sources post an article about the same event, I am going to get the "similar" title twice.
I read what you wrote perfectly carefully. I was merely suggesting, with a small question or two; that:

1. Those of us who take a position like yours nonetheless manage to find themselves experiencing the answers to moral questions as right or wrong on a daily basis, notwithstanding all efforts to deny that they can be true or false, and

2. That in a complex world we often experience ourselves as called upon to make judgments about situations that our instincts don't track. And we don't tend to think that flipping a coin is an adequate way of doing so.

Ultimately, even if you believe that propositions of right and wrong have no truth value---even if you believe "X is the right thing to do" just amounts to "yay X," thinking carefully about right and wrong is a felt human need, deeply embedded into our psychology as a species. And it's embedded in our social relations too, as we make claims of right and wrong, just and unjust, fair and unfair against one another every day and have done so since forever.

And, sure, the root instincts for this are shared by all. But is it so absurd to think that maybe the same economic division of labor principles that generate gains from specialization in every other form of human activity, even those that might not have some foundational truth value, might also apply to ethics? Even if you really think that ethics are a form of art, only with aesthetic value (a view I don't endorse, just to be clear, but I'm taking an extreme view for sake of argument---I actually think moral claims do have truth value, but that's a whole other conversation)---while it's true that any of us can slap paint on a page, and any of us can recognize beauty, I am sure glad that the world contains people who specialize in painting.
London is really bad for bag snatching. Never, ever leave your wallet, keys, phone or passport in your bag. Even when you’re holding the bag.

Don’t think for a moment that the theives aren’t watching you. Don’t think that you can just put your bag down while you look through a rack of clothes or leave it at your table while you order another drink from the bar. The theives are brazen, and as the article points out the millions of cameras that will watch it happen are not there to protect you.
Ada Lovelace: The Making of a Computer Scientist
Stack Overflow Looking for New CEO
You're welcome to go over there and tell them to stop it. They usually have a lot of power and resources, and they're unwilling to give it up.

As an American, I don't want to see my fellow countrymen dying in another pointless war, so my view is that we should generally mind our own business.

I've spoken with someone who claimed to be a monarchy proponent and they suggested I read: "Democracy – The God That Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy and Natural Order (Perspectives on Democratic Practice)", by Hans-Hermann Hoppe. I don't know anything about the author, nor have I read the book, but perhaps that might help provide some insight into why some support a monarchy.
It was quite safe in the 15 years before 2001 too. As for the major incident that happened in 2001 -- it wouldn't have been stopped by any amount of scanning of people's laptops.
What is the thought on these types of people?

They are stupid/lazy, but its their genetics and they can't help it.

So what is it, that society should do with these people. Curious solutions.
This is what you're looking for: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrJreUX3TCk

And yes, it does work - but it's a maintenance nightmare, since oil can eat some types of plastic that are commonly used, especially at their seams.
It'd be illegal in this country if not for some very creative stepping around the issue on the part of the "gig economy". (Which may itself be illegal but it appears Uber has become to large for this to matter)
Zuck may not be the role model when for tech theorists, but Rushkoff is just empty - that’s coming from hearing him talk and answer questions live
Mark Zuckerberg, you apparently don’t realize how far you’ve fallen. The best thing you could possibly do right now is to stay quiet and out of the way, not try to interject your opinions into politics or the future of tech. At the very least, it would be in your best interests if you pretended not to have a voice or a stake in where some of these decisions go.
How do you react to petty authority figures in general? How much did it bother you when, for example, elementary school playground monitors enforced arbitrary rules capriciously?

It bothered me a lot, to the extent that I still have vivid memories of it, and I also hate the TSA with every fiber of my being.

So I think it might just be a personality thing.
Sure. Right after you ask any driver if they want to be told when to work, where to work and how to work.
I would love to see a comparison of the probability of contracting a foot fungus or other contagious disease in a security line vs. being a victim in a terrorist attack.

Seeing as the TSA has never caught a terrorist (and has missed several) I’d bet a statistical case could be made that their security lines are more dangerous to the public than any terrorist attacks they may have prevented.
Nukes only protect from catastrophe (if others think that your government is sane) because they're essentially a "fuck you, we all lose" button. If you reply to something with nukes, you get nuked too.

What this means in practice is that something like "Russia assassinated the leaders of France + Germany and conquered Poland in the ensuing chaos" isn't enough of a justification for France to use nukes. That's because the payoff matrix looks something like this:

peace * conventional war * nuclear war
France 10 * 5 * -10,000,000
Russia 5 * 10 * -10,000,000

Sane governments don't choose to move their payoff from 5 to -10,000,000.

Now, there are exceptions here! One is insane government leaders. It takes a special kind of person to light the world on fire because someone took their toy, but... no one takes that guy's toy. And so since they can credibly rule out column #2 above, they never leave column #1. The other exception then is when a sane government credibly precommits to the use of nuclear weapons in some situation. But it's rather hard for a liberal democracy to do this, and if France said that they'd kill Russia with nukes (and thus indirectly themselves, Poland, and everyone else) in response to Poland being invaded - well, I don't think I'd believe in their ability to follow through.
What exactly is it that you believe is the truth then?
Wait. Even if you have access to the device how do you get app-to-app access of the underlying texts unless there is a hack unknown to Apple. I know there are barriers Apple has built in where developers cannot access the text messages because of many obvious reasons for abuse. Perhaps Pegasus knows of a "0 day" or multiple and use this? However, E2E encryption PLUS Apples security model around text messaging in iOS should prevent it.
It's unfortunate that the epistemology of science is such that we can't just take certain things for granted like this, but I understand why it is the way it is. I find psychology research to be particularly guilty of this, so much that in my head I often refer to it as the science of pointing out the obvious.
Are you ok with recurring tiny payments? For a cent a month or so you can host a site on S3 with CloudFront with your own domain / free SSL certificate.

You could do the same with Google Cloud Storage + Google Cloud Load Balancer for SSL. On a personal blog site you're almost guaranteed to stay in the free tier forever.

On either of them you can deploy static content from one of the static blog generators https://www.staticgen.com/
I've literally brought a pickaxe by accident.

But one time I was trying to bring a fish, and had a next to impossible time trying to get them to agree that water was a "life sustaining liquid" as defined by their exemptions on the 3oz rule wrt to fish.
> A semi good news from this is for the politicians to know that: "If Bezos' phone can be hacked by Saudis, so can all the politicians' phones and their office workers' phones

Of course, they could have already learned that the hard way, and that could be why they turn a blind eye to Saudi wrongdoing.
And if I were them, I'd be paying for R&D on automation.

I think I will be right, long term.
Apple, Google, Microsoft, and various other major US tech companies participate in PRISM. [1]

The NSA internally described PRISM as "extensive, in-depth surveillance on live communications and stored information" with examples including email, video and voice chat, videos, photos, voice-over-IP chats (such as Skype), file transfers, and social networking details. Quoting Snowden in regards to this, "in general, the reality is this: if an NSA, FBI, CIA, DIA, etc. analyst has access to query raw SIGINT [signals intelligence] databases, they can enter and get results for anything they want."

Note this includes live communications! So this opens a pretty big question. How? One extremely conspicuous point is that when companies initially tried to deny being involved in PRISM, they all claimed something more or less the same. 'We do not allow any government agency to have DIRECT access to our servers.':

- Apple - "We do not provide any government agency with direct access to our servers"

- Facebook - "We do not provide any government organization with direct access to Facebook servers"

- Google - "We have not joined any program that would give the U.S. government —or any other government— direct access to our servers"

And so on. This is conspicuous enough to have it effectively said that access to the NSA is facilitated through some "indirect" means. The exact technical implementation of this totally-not-a-backdoor is not as relevant as the fact that this totally-not-a-backdoor can be exploited by other actors if the means are discovered. And of course there's plain old social engineering and spy games in play. Or even plain old greed. NSA worker #235,123 gets evidence that the world's wealthiest man, arguably the single most relevant economic player in the world, is cheating on his wife with some rather extreme and embarrassing evidence of such? That's going to be worth a whole lot to many people who would like to use that information against him, and an NSA worker would be just the sort of person to know who'd be interested in it.

The US got very very lucky that Snowden seems to have been patriotic and ethical, but nonetheless his actions emphasize that all the scrutiny and profiling in the world can't really predict what people will do. And as we continue to expand our surveillance state, it means the damage a single disgruntled worker can do continues to grow in proportion.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)
No, it's not irrational. It's because you are being made less secure. When traveling, one generally packs their stuff well and keeps it together to maintain control of it. The TSA makes you do the exact opposite - unpack it all and splay it out in many unmanageable bins so they can carry out their their charade. You're then plainly vulnerable to easy theft, never mind if something happened where you actually had to hoof it and you're just standing there like an idiot struggling to get to your shoes!
https://github.com/kattgu7/996-License-Draft/
>would they be better off?

This is impossible to say, since we cannot run a simulation in which Uber/Lyft never existed, just like we can't measure the crimes that weren't committed because of laws.

We can only examine the world as it is, including the economic conditions that precipitate a person taking a ride share job, the long-term financial implications of slowing selling time and vehicle condition, combined with the diminishing returns offered by the company to make some inferences about whether this whole thing is 'good for people' or 'not.' And, I gotta say, the situation is looking more like the latter than the former.
"a place where large numbers of people, especially political prisoners or members of persecuted minorities, are deliberately imprisoned in a relatively small area"
Get variable and method/function names right. They matter more than most comments. I remember a code base I inherited

if avail > 0:

I could never reason well about that. Then I changed it to

if available_hosts > 0:

and eventually into

if number_of_hosts_to_scan > 0:

Technically this would be enough

if number_of_hosts_to_scan:

but it's less clear.

I'm not afraid to type long variable names because the editor has autocomplete. I don't type much and I don't make typos.
Government is great at some things. Unfortunately one of those things isn't dealing with fears rationally.
> Thinking as a Martian, if humans were to decide to trust everyone a minimum amount, such that no human had no trust, but every human had some trust, and that amount of trust was sufficient for everyone to obtain a minimum amount of access to the resources necessary for life, then everything would change.

This is looking at human beings from a personal standpoint. You have to look at humans as a group and decide what the Nash equilibrium looks like. If everyone tried to trust a minimum amount, there is a large incentive on single individual to break that trust and gain benefits. You need some kind of system to dis incentivize people from breaking trust. Guess what that's what law and order is. But unfortunately nations haven't been able to agree on common international law because the Nash equilibrium in the group of nations happens to be different.

While I applaud the optimism of the writer, the piece is too rosy and void of facts/theoretical framework for me to appreciate it.