skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
We recently completed a project with similar requirements. We ended up using rtsp from the camera and packing it up in websockets using ffmpeg. We had sub second latency. The camera gave h264 so we could just repack that.
We're giving a talk about the project on MonteVIDEO Tech meetup, though it will be in Spanish.

Contact me if you want to discuss it further.
I'm going to be controversial here. I don't think management/owners regularly talk together about how to minimize the cost of employees. I mean, it happens occasionally, but it's not actually a normal conversation in a company.

Instead companies talk about how much they can afford to pay for salaries. Frequently they talk about increasing the cost of employees from the point of view of expanding. Should we hire more people? Will it improve the business? Should we increase salaries? Will it allow us to attract better employees?

When companies are talking about reducing or restricting the cost of employees, it's usually in the context of solving problems in the company. The company is losing in money in some areas. Should we lay off employees? Can we negotiate a pay freeze or a pay cut until the company can get in better shape? Will we lose too many employees if we do that? Will we lose our best employees if we do that?

The biggest problem I have with unions (being one of the few programmers who has actually worked as a programmer in a union) is that in my experience is the conversations almost never discuss the health of the company. They only discuss strategies for maximizing pay, benefits or ensuring that layoffs are impossible.

I honestly believe that the attitude of "They are doing it so we have to too!" is a thing that destroys companies. The Us vs. Them approach helps nobody. Yes, if you have no choice and the company you are working for has decided that they want "Us vs. Them" and you can't convince them to join you in making the company and it's employees successful, I can completely see the point of a union. For me, that's a last resort. I'll try everything I can to fix the problem a different way before I'll say, "We're going to organise so that we can effectively compete with you". This includes simply quitting my job and finding another one.

Or to be more clear: I greatly value working at a company where I wouldn't ever think of organising a union. I value working at a company where the company values me and sees it as a cooperative venture. I don't want to work for a company that views me as an adversary or as someone they need to manipulate. That's why I don't want a union. In my fairly long career I've worked for both kinds of companies, so I know both exist.
Shadowban them with bogus data to pollute their database.
Uh, it never was? I didn't learn what the ampersand was until middle school.

I knew how to interpret the symbol (because relatives and teachers corrected me when I mistakenly read it as a capital letter "A" when looking at newspapers, as early as kindergarten, while trying to demonstrate my ability to read), but I was taught to avoid using it as part of handwriting. I knew what to call it, and that it means "and" but was encouraged to use the plus sign (+) if I needed to use punctuation for such purposes, although even that was frowned upon, as improper and informal.

During middle school, we were taught to type using computers, and so learned some of the more common symbols. While typing, shorthand was tolerated with greater sympathy, since printed or typed writing was clearly legible, and not subject to the harsher criticisms of penmanship, where abstract symbols might look like childish scribbles.

I didn't develop my ability to write an ampersand by hand until high school, when I was forced to take notes in class, and use of shorthand was acceptable, as long as I could read my own note taking, and recite a reasonable summary of classroom lectures if called upon. My notes never actually lived up to that criteria but at least I could write an ampersand.
I also suspect this to be the case. However, the reason you get a WAF is because you either want a security blanket or don't have the resources to implement the service in a "good" or... even: "decent" language ;).
> Those on the outside should come inside. There's no reason why self-taught developers can't be on the inside, as long as they learn and adhere to professional standards (as agreed upon by the membership.)

If the members have enough market power to enforce union exclusivity they have no incentive to allow self-taught developers to join and every incentive to keep them out. A union is a labour cartel and economically it works the same as a capital cartel by capturing more of the productivity than they would under free competition by reducing supply of the input they control.

> and tbh, there's also nothing to lose by being in the union except what is probably a trivial amount of dues in return for group rate insurance, refresher training classes, and discount software licenses.

Because unions try to represent the average worker, in areas with low productivity differentials they generally aim for seniority based pay and last in first out firing. This is another instance of the general pattern of helping members at the expense of non-members. In areas with large productivity differentials line the SAG they set minimum wages while punishing employers of non-members.

Unions grab a bigger piece of the pie by taking it from someone else, either the employer or potential competitors and they often redistribute the pie from higher to lower productivity workers.
DJB himself gave a talk about "nothing up my sleeve" curves, which can still have a backdoor. The limitation section on the page you linked to says it best:

Bernstein, et al., demonstrate that use of nothing-up-my-sleeve numbers as the starting point in a complex procedure for generating cryptographic objects, such as elliptic curves, may not be sufficient to prevent insertion of back doors. If there are enough adjustable elements in the object selection procedure, the universe of possible design choices and of apparently simple constants can be large enough so that a search of the possibilities allows construction of an object with desired backdoor properties.
“On Mac, if you have ever installed Zoom, there is a web server on your local machine running on port 19421.”

...

“All a website would need to do is embed the above in their website and any Zoom user will be instantly connected with their video running. This is still true today!”
This guy is right about one thing. The Spanish Prisoner is a great film. The rest is gibberish.
Spontaneous formation of CdSe photoluminescent nanotubes
But things would shore get purdy!
Oh yeah, I have a wife and a baby
Engineering entropy for inverse design of colloidal crystals from hard shapes
Could you point to which part of the LLVM docs use "atomic" to mean "linearizable"? (I'm not even sure what you mean by that, but if you mean "sequentially consistent", that's explicitly its own subcategory under atomicity in the docs... it's definitely not what they mean by atomicity in general. [1])

[1] https://llvm.org/docs/Atomics.html#optimization-outside-atom...
I think the Google founders had a vision of solving a problem. They wanted to make search work right.

(Well, technically, they wanted to get their Ph.Ds - the actual history of Google was that Larry had the idea to download the web and throw away everything except the links, so he did that. Then he had the idea to visualize it as a big eigenvalue calculation on the probability of a random surfer ending up at a given page, and that's where he got the idea for PageRank. Then someone - might have been him, Sergey, or Scott Hassan - got the idea to sort webpages by PageRank, and the results were better than existing search engines, and so they launched BackRub as a search engine. Then Andy Bechtolsteim thought it could be a really big company and gave them $100K to make it one, and the rest is history.)

If you steer towards problems, and do so without fear of the unknown, you'll naturally move towards ideas where you get to define the category. They wouldn't be problems if someone had already solved them! The rest - building a business, making money, marketing it, defining it in customers' heads, etc. - can all follow later.
My bad, I meant to say that it doesn't use any public key encryption like ElGamal. Or at least, I've only ever seen ECIES implemented with ECDH + symm enc
I'd feel much more job satisfaction from that.
I also assume that as you're unspooling the line across the entire United States, you are also stopping every few miles and calling back to make sure the line is working.
Oh lookout, practically every student in the UT Comp. Sci. Dept. will be on to this . . .
How long is your commute? If your commute is short and/or fast-paced (e.g. speed walk, bus/train that is on time), then you can often carry forward the productivity from work for a bit at home.

This often works for me, but as soon as I eat, I'll have to take a few hours break in the evening, then become productive again in the late evening.
There are many advantages to Curve25519, but in many cases you need to use RSA. E.g., when you're trying to talk to arbitrary websites securely, you don't get to choose what was used to sign their certificate. There are many circumstances where you have to build systems that work with other systems, and ignoring that doesn't make it go away.

I think the key advice is to use an existing crypto library. A non-expert who tries to implement ECC themselves will almost certainly screw it up as well. Sure, it is a little less likely, but it is still possible.
I trust Krebs to do the right thing, but hopefully he went to authorities with this before publishing this dude's personal information.

Of course, I may be a little too sensitive about this kind of stuff. I am in the middle of reading Neal Stephenson's REAMDE right now.
I have participated in multiple types.

1:1 code review in person, sort of like pairing at that point. 1:1 remote via PR, 1:N in person in front of a screen or projector, 1:N remote where you need multiple approvals and different sections may interest different people, and N:M where a small team worked on a feature and request another teams review.

I think of review broadly as the remote/pr kind. But all of these are valuable in different situations.
nihilistic sociopaths have invented financial engineering which generates money without providing social value to others.
> Other boards beat the Raspberry Pi in mainline kernel support, USB & Ethernet I/O & price years ago

You sound knowledgeable, so I'll ask: if you don't care about the RPi ecosystem (or IoT use-cases at all, really), what's the optimum SBC across all those axes currently? Like, what board would you choose to base a cheap one-off HTPC+NAS on?
it's web development and it pays well enough...
I acknowledge that there are definite issues at play with employment in the tech industry, but, come on; we are one of the most coddled and well-payed segments of the entire laboring economy. Maybe unions aren't being organized because we aren't forced to work graveyard shifts with few to no breaks for very little pay? I'm not sure the actual issues at hand in the tech industry are best addressed by unions (at least in the traditional sense).
This article specifically seems to cover the conflict of interest that arises from McKinsey also running a hedge fund (MIO).

The NYT article (your second link) covers the same topic more clearly indeed.

(Can't read the paywalled FT article).
Rich Beato and Warren Huard's (Produce like a Pro) channels are absolute gold.
Yes! That was indeed it. You motivated me to go look into my archives - I took that course in 2010 and almost entirely forgot I had :)
Any good one for learning synths?
> Scarecrow by Wand

Wow, that is so not what I was expecting from your description.

For "space in a song" I was thinking something more like "Brothers in Arms" or "Comfortably Numb".
>I think using SOLID as development guidelines produces a scalable codebase divided cohesively into units of work.

The problem with Object oriented programming is not any of these things. The problem is that an object is a bad choice for a unit of work. A good analogy is bricks and construction. If a brick represents a unit of work to construct a wall, object oriented programming represents a brick with jagged faces.

This is why, no matter how deeply you follow these guidelines you will always have to build custom "interface bricks" (aka glue code) to compose jagged bricks together.

GoLang solves the problem with objects by getting rid of objects all together, but the fundamental procedural function that it uses as a primitive of composition is also jagged in a way. GoLang procedures do not compose very well.

There is a deeper primitive that programmers should model their code around that gets rid of the usage of misshapen bricks as the building block of programs. Bricks that compose with other bricks without glue. I leave it to you to find out what this primitive is, as you use it everyday to build misshapen objects.

The original article talks about readability and simplicity. It does not talk about compose-ability and modularity. Both of the aforementioned traits have a strange relationship with readability and clarity. More modularity does not necessarily mean less readability in all cases but it certainly changes readability.
Would anyone mind posting a tl;dr?
redhat (origin or systemd and wayland) is losing influence? Not sure I agree with that one. Debian is 100% a follower of mighty redhat.

I hear you that ubuntu is the most common docker base image and laptop linux OS but debian's big decisions are all based on redhat, afaict.
It’s hard to say it’s not inspired by Ruby when Jose and many of the core contributors came from the Ruby world.

It’s not at all the same thing as Ruby on Beam though - it’s a very different language, but it does borrow a lot of good ideas from the Ruby ecosystem while improving on them in many ways.
The robots could probably work almost 24/7
I have been following Libra very closely, and have read their white paper twice.

There have been a few good discussions here on HN when it launched [0], but I think most of these have been very biased against anything Facebook-related.

I find the launch of Libra a really interesting "experiment", with potentially big negative or positive consequences for the entire world.

Right now, it's really hard to judge on the technical merits (e.g. the Move language, or the architecture, or how they're going to transition to a truly permissionless and decentralized consensus).

However, I think that it's wise to follow Libra's evolution with attention, as it might, and probably will, have consequences in our lives.

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20210791
Wow, I thought that the professional growth potential from a career standpoint should be the biggest factor to consider, but your answer has left me wondering whether that's really a thing..
I might be missing something, but can’t you just `git checkout -b <feature-branch-name>`?
Contamination of produce has been due to using contaminated water for irrigation or washing, or infested storage. It has nothing to do with there being a human picker or not. The article you cite essentially points this out.
The problem with starting off in-house and then employing remote workers as an afterthought is that it creates a perception-based inequality between the two camps. Like the CEO of AngelList said, the primary reason remote workers at large companies decide to return back to their offices (as you've stated) is that the status quo there is to be at the office. You can read the article here if you're interested: https://angel.co/blog/why-naval-ravikant-thinks-remote-work-....
Everyone who works for a company is an employee of the company, with a wage (or an hourly rate), and potentially some equity as well. Every employee should be considering how to make the company more profitable, which could be by accelerating a development schedule, overdelivering in a new feature/performance, or hiring and retaining key talent.

The wages of these employees is not set by the company. It is set by the market, and in a market as competitive as tech, this is particularly true. Management can decide what tier of employee they want to target when they set hiring budgets and salary ranges, they can decide how risk averse they want to be with losing top talent with retention bonuses and benefits, but they don’t get to directly “minimize the cost of employees” in that sense.

Only a set of companies colluding together can act to minimize the cost like that, for example what we saw in the past with anti-poaching agreements, which the big tech companies were sued for successfully.

The individual corporation vs union analogy is highly tortured. Companies incorporate for the legal liability protection, for the ability to issue shares, for the ability to file taxes as a separate entity, etc.
According to wikipedia, it's compsition is mostly Iron and Nickel. Gold would only be a trace. Iron and Nickel at 1/10th the current cost would have a big economic impact.

Lower prices for resources would make us richer in spending power.

An asteroid miner, just like a Bhp or Mincore, would have to take into account the effect on market prices of a large new supply.

Mass of (2.41±0.32)×10^19 kg
> That is, if Google doesn't hire me, it doesn't lose out on much. For Google, maybe a small fraction of its capital isn't deployed, which is unfortunate but doesn't make a dent in the grand scheme of things. But if I don't have a job, then I will lose out on a lot -- I can't pay bills, I might lose my home. So I have a strong incentive to accept an offer from Google, and therefore Google has a lesser incentive to offer me better compensation.

You're comparing apples and oranges here, in that you're comparing Google not hiring a single employee to you not getting _any_ job. The analogue to you failing to get any job is Google failing to hire any employees, at which point it ceases to exist, which isn't the case for even the chronically unemployed. The comparison as you've constructed it proves the _opposite_ of your claimed point (though I should note that I think the whole construction is weak; I'm certainly not drawing the conclusion that workers have more power than Google)
>All the accomplishments of humanity stem from having children.

And all the failures.

There's already too many people on this planet for it to be sustainable.
Should you take money from a CVC?
Thanks for sharing these, although most of these (if not all) are behind a paywall.

p.s. love your username.
This is a very nice library. It deserves to be ported to JS so it can be enjoyed in the front end too.
If you take a moment to think that through, in global terms, since pollution affects the entire planet, then we see that 12,000 rocket launches means we need to remove one busy airport from service, to break even on current pollution standards, which are already admittedly bad.
just because a few rich/powerful people at the top of the country benefit from it and therefore actively embrace it, doesn't mean it's not colonialism
An alternative for tech interview process
Many feel that current interview process is almost worthless and the only guarantee it provides is you are not hiring worst of the worst. Also, within a hiring company hardly any employee is an expert interviewer and there is no standard criterion, which makes the process even more useless. Hiring team wastes time in going through tonnes of candidates and candidates waste time in preparing differently for different companies. Maybe following can be an alternative-

1. The hiring team should only do culture and personality fit, which will be the last phase.
2. One or two interview for above should be sufficient, could even be one-to-many type interview.
3. A 3rd-party company should bear the burden of technical interviewing.
4. Anyways, everyone asks similar questions so doesn’t matter who asks it but having specialized company interview for various tech companies will ensure certain level of consistency.
5. Since this 3rd-party will focus just on technical interviewing skills/process, it will become expert in this domain.
6. Taking it further, the interview could be SAT/GRE type score, valid for certain duration (3-6 months). Take the test, apply to various companies at your own pace.
7. Such standardized score could also help reduce size of target company, further saving candidate's time.
8. May be candidate can opt for in-person interview and still get standardized score.
9. Since 3rd-party has no other thing but to interview, it should be able to provide whole gamut of options - in-person, online, whiteboard, with IDE, with vim, specialty topics, pick-your-own topics, etc. Hiring company set their criteria, candidates set their own and someone finds a match.

Process can be further tweaked in umpteen ways but will ensure a degree of standardization across industry. Multiple third-party companies will compete for better services and will get engaged accordingly. Is this viable alternative?
A comment off topic of a fashion that police have found in my country, they have discovered gangs are mining bitcoin with theft of electric power. Almost a real gold mine
Speaking of Eve.

A good friend of mine died young. Captain Luke Lonestar was a well loved director of our corp and friend to many.

For his funeral, the group had our own send off for him. This included multiple people flying to New York from as far away as California.

It is incredibly surprising how close knit a gaming community can be. How much support each and everyone provides each other. I can say I'm a better person for knowing him and for what he had done for me and our group.

It is truly amazing how far a good community will go to help each other.
REM vs. EM – The Great Debate – Zell Liew
Ability to make complex things simple is what sets apart a great programmer from an average one. So why do most programmer interviews at companies such as Google focus on writing performant code instead?

Most professional programmers only occasionally need to look into performance issues, but need to take complex things and simplify them with every line of code they write. And yet most programming interviews don’t evaluate this ability. I think this should change.
How would you go about reliably and efficiently determining which category each falls into?
>> The vision is irrelevant to the customer.

Having vision for a product means correctly identifying customer's problem and proposing a solution for it. Dropbox vision is: "Make user files accessible anywhere, by storing it in the cloud synching them across devices". Google's vision is: "Make all information in the world easy to find and access, by having search engine know you better than you know yourself" :)

Customers either buy into your vision, or ignore it, and the latter means that the problem that you stated does not exist or is not important enough to your users.

For you, having clear vision helps you create MVP, because you can easily identify which features are crucial, and which are nice to have.
>> The discussion is purely academic, and is driven by the questions that are interesting to the people doing the discussing.

I think you're saying I butted in to the conversation you were having with the other poster. If so, that's very surprising, given the venue.

Anyway, yes, I understand that the discussion is "purely academic". But that doesn't change the fact that the plan is unrealistic. Why is that not of "purely academic" interest?