skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
In theory, employees are allowed to (supposed to, even) work on whatever they think is valuable. In reality, you should be working on whatever the people around you think is valuable or you're gonna get fired really quickly. (Fewer than half of new employees make it to the end of their first year.) This usually means doing whatever the most senior people on the team think is important, both because they should know if they've been there for a while, but also because they wield enormous power behind the scenes.

The problem with a company with no defined job titles or explicit seniority is that there is still seniority, but it is invisible and thus deniable. An example: in my first few months, I was struggling to find a good project and a very senior employee (one of the partners, actually) took me aside and recommended I leave my current team since my heart was clearly not in it and take some time to think about what I really wanted to do, or else I'd get let go. I took his advice seriously, came up with a couple ideas, and then approached him a week or so later to pitch these projects. He got _angry_ at me, stressing that he's not my boss, and that it showed a remarkable lack of initiative that I'd ask someone else at the company what I should work on. So: he has the authority to fire me (or at least to plausibly threaten to fire me) but the moment that authority would mean any responsibility or even the slightest effort to mentor someone, he's just another regular Joe with no special role at all. Similarly, there's no way to get meaningful feedback because nobody really knows who's going to be making the performance evaluations. Sure, you can take advice from someone who's been there for ten years, but if they're not included in the group that's assembled to evaluate you then their guidance is worth nothing.

I worked with some very smart people there, but it was the most dysfunctional and broken work environment I've ever witnessed.
Of course there are people and companies willing to spend 5 figures on a workstation but most of them want Nvidia graphics.

When you are paying tens of thousands of dollars you don't want to be stuck in Apple's weird AMD-only walled garden.
I'll just leave it at this

http://www.rahmahmuslimhomeschool.co.uk/index/wp-content/upl...

It's fairly reasonable for someone who doesn't know the term 'arabic numbers' to assume that he's asked about style of number writing as currently practiced in the arabic countries.
It's not about clickbait in this case. It's more like not giving away the answer to a puzzle. The puzzle itself is a good thing. It jigs us out of the mode in which we expect everything to be instantly explained. I can't prove it, but I believe that when operating in that mode, we are more likely to have predictable responses.

Also, there's a historical aspect to this. We don't need, and needn't presume, to rewrite the titles of classic articles.
I shared this with a biostatistician friend and he replied:

There has been epidemiologic evidence of associations between periodontal disease and several diseases/outcomes, including heart attacks, strokes and (in pregnant women) premature and/or low birthweight babies. Clinical trials of treatments for periodontal disease have thus far not shown any benefit in terms of these outcomes. For example:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19701034
Simulation: The Invisible Gatekeeper
User mode debugging is an area that any present or future OS designer should be concerned about getting right in terms of debugging features vs. security implications...
> Same thing here. The queue will eventually fill up if there's a stall, causing the reader (and / or the writer) threads to stall as well.

There's an important difference between "queue full" and "queue not full, but locked". In the former case, you can either block (waiting for the queue to drain) or discard the data; in the later case, you must wait for the lock to be released before deciding. That is, if you allow data to be discarded when the queue is full, a lock-free queue can also be stall-free.

(It might appear that a queue using a lock can also be stall-free, since the amount of work it does while locked is bounded; however that fails once the thread holding the lock is preempted by either a context switch or a hardware interrupt. To really avoid stalls in that case, you have to either block preemption and interrupts, or perhaps you might be able to make it work with some priority inheritance scheme. And yeah, I know that the hardware can "stall" while reading or updating a shared variable, but the amount of work the hardware does in that case is bounded.)
Would you prefer it if everyone replied with the exact same post?
Jeez, what's with the down votes? Look at the netcat documentation, that's what the configuration option for "-e" is called.

https://ps.uci.edu/~franklin/doc/netcat.html
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/15351646/how-to-re-compi...
It seems to me that most of the recent wave of climate change alarmist articles take it for granted that a mean temperature increase of +4°C or more would result in a collapse of the functioning of Earth's ecosystems/render the planet uninhabitable/cause in a runaway effect where more carbon is released and the planet heats until it turns into Mercury or Arrakis. However, based on our best knowledge [1], it seems that during the Cretaceous period and for a while after, temperatures were well in excess of this (~+10°C or more?), but the global ecosystem was closer to being tropical and extremely fertile than to being barren, and there was no runaway warming. What is the argument that this isn't going to happen in our current iteration of climate change? If there is none, is it safe to dismiss any documents that claim or imply an uninhabitable Earth as a consequence of climate change as primarily ideological rather than scientific?

(I'd be much more willing to entertain arguments that a rapid transition to a Cretaceous-style planet would be a political catastrophe for the "global south"/equatorial countries that are already struggling with drought, but then I'd need to see reasoning why we should expect any threat to human civilisation as a whole rather than "just" a massive humanitarian crisis through which the residents of the currently-temperate northern hemisphere can just sit back on their pile of futuristic weaponry and laugh.)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/m...
My hat is off to you for standing up for what you believed was right.
Any one have a source to the FDA publication they took this from?

This is the best source I could find.
https://static.ewg.org/pdf/alex-530.pdf

PS. News agencies that don't provide the public source deserve a special place in hell.
The article specifically mentioned that the integrations AWS can offer between services simply cannot be competed with by any single company, no matter how good that company makes their own hosted product.
He meant it will take a short amount of time to write and then compile, not that the compilation takes 10 minutes.
Oohh, ok, I think that I got it (you keep opening new/unknown links in additional tabs and once you have them all you go through them) - thx.
I relate to your sentiment so much! Do you think you’ll try again?
Apologies upfront if this is a bit uncouth but if you don't mind my asking; what job are you doing which pays you $400,000 a year as a salaried employee?

I'm in europe, I guess we are a bit behind on the pay scales but that's an absolutely incredible amount of money to me; I'm genuinely curious what you're being paid to do for that level of compensation...
Indeed, oops! Brains in pattern matching mode. :-)

Then again, I think XCHG (has implicit atomic LOCK, no need for LOCK prefix) is kinda x86 only thing.

> pure-swap is probably faster to implement than a compare-and-swap in microcode, but I admit that I've never actually tested this theory.

I don't think there's practical performance difference, because inter-core cache coherency traffic is going to dominate by far.
Don't worry, it's quite likely you won't have thousands of years of immortality even if biological immortality is achieved. Eventually, something is going to kill you: a plane crash, a speeding bus, an earthquake, a murderer, etc. Just look at how many people are killed in cars every year in the US alone.
That heuristic from Weinberg is excellent. I think that illustrates the point we were discussing above in a much clearer way.

Thanks for bringing him to light. I was completely ignorant of him before your comment and look forward to looking into the sources you graciously added to the discussion.

Edit: Went to add the books you cited to my Goodreads list and lo and behold, the first one was already there. I am not going to live long enough to read all of the books I want to!
Doesnt twitter still force tweets into your feed from people you dont follow?
In my experience, they're only good when I don't need them. If the audio is clear, it's astonishingly accurate (except for the lack of punctuation). But for heavily accented speech, or if there's any background noise, or there are multiple speakers, it completely fails, and it's better to go find a pair of headphones and turn up the volume.

Also, I hate how the auto-generated CC spits out one word at a time while scrolling the lines up, and how it keeps the previous caption on screen mixed in with the next one during long moments of non-speech (if the speaker isn't in frame, it's hard to know what the context is). That's not how I read—it's not how anyone reads. I would rather it showed a single block at a time, with the current word highlighted.

And what's with the random "yeah yeah yeah", "[applause]", or "[music]" captions when it's just guessing? Better to put question marks than be completely wrong.

lack of punctuation and capitalisation also makes informal speech quite difficult to understand sentences just run into another makes it hard to know what's referring to what gets split into unnatural sentences... you get the point.

However, automated CC is good when you're trying to find a particular part of a long video, and you don't want to watch the whole thing just to find it. It's easy to skim the captions to find a relevant part.
Well Cooley’s free SAFT legal framework ended up with startups facing SEC enforcement actions.

>I guess you get what you pay for.

Then again, Kik, Cooley’s paying client also ended up in an SEC enforcement action (they claim they already spent $5M in legal fee prior to the SEC bringing the case).

I’m not so sure the issue is how much the clients paid for Cooley’s advice so much as the advice itself.
> Depending on the licensing cost and the effort required to integrate the project with their infrastructure, it might be cheaper for the provider to fork the last version before the relicense and support it going forward

e.g. AWS creating OpenDistro for Elasticsearch and adding core elastic stack functionality for free (Auth/TLS/Alerting) by integrating and adapting existing OS components.
I think that if you spoke with people who voted to leave, rather than relying on the interpretation of media outlets that opposed them, you would find that the decision was much better informed than you believe.

Also consider that people on all sides of large democratic votes have complex motives. It is just as likely that people who voted remain wished to "send a message", or were "tricked" by PR, or "didn't understand" the implications.

This is my point about trying to reinterpret the meaning of a vote after the fact; it is always tainted with the bias of the person doing the interpretation.
My friend works at a liquor store. His boss one day told him to label the poorly-selling wines as "Staff Picks". So your fear isn't exactly unfounded :P
This site includes content from saasapp.com:

[Whitelist INC saasapp.com From mydomain.com]

[Blacklist saasapp.com]

[Allow once]

[Ignore]
But only some of the ideology from then is reactionary and conservative by today's standards.

Why the assumption that Past = Right/Conservative and Future = Left/Progressive? I grew up with about this view of politics, but I don't think it's accurate. It seems like a nice simplification, but it's a gross oversimplification that paints anything right of center as being obviously backwards.
The reasons why people don't like the DMV and the reasons why people don't like Facebook could not be more different, but sure, whatever.
Actually it’s VMA: http://www.mellanox.com/page/software_vma?mtag=vma

100GBit would usually put enormous strains on the CPU (to the point it’s pretty much only doing that), which is taken away entirely by using this.

As it turns out, hardware appears to be much faster at these types of things than general purpose CPUs. :)
It is a high risk business model to be entirely dependent on negotiating a license with a single vendor that you are competing against.
For MongoDB there are vendors that will keep offering managed MongoDB. I talked with one that is open-sourcing their deployment as required by the MongoDB license. I suspect that no companies will start a new hosted MongoDB offering based on purchasing a commercial license from MongoDB and we already saw the biggest alternative MongoDB provider merge with MongoDB.
Glass half-full. I like it.

Also on the positive side, a lot of us will possibly learn the answer to this question.
A lot to unpack here, but I have to be brief. I have a lot of real work to do too.

First, current anti-trust law does not care at all whether you are a luxury brand, what your "market influence" is, etc etc etc. Current anti-trust law is mostly about market share and anti-competitive practices. Along with a few ancillary but closely related issues. (Again, another reason we need to change the laws, but that's not happening right now.)

Second, being the platform and the gatekeeper is the entire business model I've been talking about. That's the business model that has taken over the US over the past 50 or so years. Which is why I suspect that no one has the balls to go after it. Costco is the platform and the gatekeeper. So is Target. So is Walgreens. Don't even get me started on Amazon and Walmart. Etc etc etc. All, and more businesses to boot, are both the foundation and a competitor in what are effectively markets controlled by themselves. (Again, really good reason to change the law and make owning and participating in the same marketplace illegal. But the scale of the problem is a really good reason not to mess with it. I understand that, but I still think the law should be changed to make that one thing illegal and almost all the problems go away. Well, long term they'll go away. Obviously there would be short term pain.)

Finally, yeah, in layman's terms there is the idea of, let's call it, "able competition". I can't claim that my map app failed because Apple and Google were anti-competitive. The reason that claim is going nowhere is because of the idea that I never had a reasonably high chance of success in the first place. All that to say, yes, legally, in a court of law, how much of a competitor you are can absolutely come into play.

It's not corruption that makes the law pay more attention to the major players either. You can think of it this way, no one should award me millions in damages because my app failed, unless there was actually some kind of reasonable opportunity for my app to succeed in the absence of Apple's anti-competitive actions. You can probably see where that would go if ruled favorably on those kinds of questions. When you allow those kinds of claims, you just open up the door to frivolous time wasters that would be filed by millions of developers against Apple, and Google, and probably Steam as well. And that doesn't even count the physical world. The guy who made Bob's Bargain Basement Garlic Flavored Mouthwash could claim that Walgreen's and Walmart not giving him shelf space was the reason he failed. But for their anti-competitive practices, he would have made millions. But, um, yeah, he wouldn't have.
> "I was left thinking that dozens of workers and firefighters were immediately killed"

That's the main problem with this argument: they were "left with an impression" that just isn't supported by the actual episode. The episode actually undersells it: even though there were 2 (official) deaths, none are actually shown.

> [..] appears to leave him for dead in a hall. Later we see the man slumped over and smoking what appears to be his last cigarette.

So they notice they wrongly considered someone to be "left for dead", then immediately make the same mistake again?

> we see a fireman who is carrying a body on a stretcher collapse and drop the body.

Injured people just happen to be often carried on stretchers without being dead. Dropping off a stretcher is less common, but also not fatal.

Everything that was shown quite plausibly happened. Here's a list that's more current than the 1988 UN report: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_di...

Dozens of people suffered severe radiation burns, which would appear exactly as gruesome as despicted: "from 115 patients treated in Moscow, 30% had burns covering 10–50% of body surface, 11% were affected on 50–100% of skin"[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_burn#Nuclear_acciden...]
This is a lexis case brief for law school students, not a scotus holding? Probably not what you would rely on for real.

The entire decision text is here:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/547/28/
You'll note your quote does not appear there.

I mean, at some point you may just have to trust me since I specialize in this area of law, among others :)

The state of the world on tying is specifically "If you can show these X things, it will be per-se illegal, regardless of reason". If you can't, it won't be, and will be analyzed under rule of reason.

But i understand if you want to think otherwise.

(And i'll admit i'm too lazy to go look up recent appeals court cases on tying for you right now)
I disagree with review consensus so often they might as well be white noise to me.
A few things to clarify:

The SEC's position is that tokens are "securities" under the Securities Act and the Securities Act says that all securities must be registered if they're going to be sold to the public. Since the SEC views the tokens as securities (no different from company stock), and securities must be registered to be sold to the public, then (according to the SEC) an ICO of an unregistered token violates securities regulations.

To that end, the SEC hasn't issued "regulations that govern ICOs" they've issued guidance as to how the _existing_ securities regulations apply to tokens and ICOs. The rules haven't changed, the SEC has just attempted to make it clear that the rules do apply even though they haven't necessarily been enforced.

That guidance has come in the form of a statement for ICO issuers[1], a 'Framework for "Investment Contract" Analysis of Digital Assets'[2], and a statement on cryptocurrencies and ICOs[3]. All three include language along the lines of:

> This framework represents Staff views and is not a rule, regulation, or statement of the Commission. The Commission has neither approved nor disapproved its content. This framework, like other Staff guidance, is not binding on the Divisions or the Commission.

As I mentioned in my comment above, the definition of "security" includes a lot of situations. The Howey test only applies to _one_ of those situations: investment contracts. Since "investment contracts" are a type of "security" an investment contract is subject to all of the same rules and regulations as any other security.

Investment contracts are sort of the catch all category in the definition of "security" and why you'll often hear the term come up with respect to cryptocurrency because cryptocurrency is not specifically included in the statutory definition of "security."

Many types of securities fail the Howey test because they aren't "investment contracts" but they are still a "security" and still subject to the same regulations.

For example, employee stock options fail the Howey test because they aren't "an investment of money" and because profits aren't expected "solely from the efforts of a third party." But the Howey test would never be applied to employee stock options because we know "options" and "stock" and "profit-sharing agreement" are all specifically included in the definition of "security." So it doesn't really matter whether employee stock options are an investment contract - they're still subject to the same regulations.

[1] https://www.sec.gov/news/public-statement/statement-framewor...

[2] https://www.sec.gov/files/dlt-framework.pdf

[3] https://www.sec.gov/news/public-statement/statement-clayton-...
> I don't really need to benchmark to see which one is faster.

I know that iterating an Array is radically faster than iterated a LinkedList. But I also know this because I’ve seen the difference first hand. Countless times over the years in fact. I even have a bit of a gut feeling for how much slower it can be.

This case I don’t have the same level of experience. I’m sitting in an airport on my tablet right now. So I can’t throw any quick benchmarks together.

Suffice to say I very much would like to see an actual for reals comparison. Because I haven’t dealt with this before and even if I’m convinced one way is faster seeing is believing! Performance benchmarks are almost always surprising.

Edit: from Reddit here is a different spsc-ringbuffer that may be more to your liking! https://github.com/polyfractal/bounded-spsc-queue
http://archive.is/6J5dp

https://outline.com/ngkMLt
I recently saw the one exhibited in the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum, close to IAD airport: https://airandspace.si.edu/udvar-hazy-center

It got there from LA, and on it's way set 4 speed records: https://airandspace.si.edu/udvar-hazy-center
two world wars couldn't impact the ability of agriculture to feed 7+ billion people
They're not necessarily fake, but they may be incentivised. I've had offers of a £5 voucher for a photo review or £10 for a video (the product was a £15 solar panel). No idea what happens if you slate the product, but amazon would probably refund you if it was that bad.

Sellers are well aware how much of a boost a photo or video from a verified purchase can give.
Yea, that sounds like an excuse.

The APIs are all public. The company can build whatever integrations they want to offer. For example, many already use EC2, VPCs, S3, Lambda, Kinesis, etc. to extend their databases into a client's architecture, and it's no different than what AWS provides.
Right, this makes sense to me. If you can cut down on customers' needs to make a decision, you'll increase the likelihood that someone makes a purchase. Building consumer trust by recommending actually good products is in Amazon's interest here
>We need to cure all the cancers, Alzheimer’s, heart disease, etc.

No, we really don't. Heart disease is mostly caused by lifestyle. And cancer and the aging process are two sides of the same coin: solve aging and you'll figure out cancer too. Alzheimer's is now appearing to be caused by a virus, so we'll probably have a vaccine for that before long.
The truth is there are A LOT of ICOs which are actually developing or have developed some good solutions to certain problems. Yes there are a lot more scams than good projects, but just dismissing the whole field because of those is plain dumb.
Hey thanks for commenting and sharing!

My experience with golang was pretty short; this was back in the days of `go get` and I just couldn't get used to the dependency management system. I think others have had the same problem: https://bluxte.net/musings/2018/04/10/go-good-bad-ugly

IMHO a language is a combination of different factors: the community, the spec, the libraries, the support, the toolchain, etc. and the concurrency model is only one small part of that. If your concurrency model is CSP, the truer that statement may be, because CSP allows you to write highly stateful code, and because given time all user code trends towards the properties of the language and CSP doesn't really enforce a whole lot.