skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Value investing: you try to come up with an intrinsic valuation of a security and buy if market price is, say, 60% or lower of that valuation. Famous examples: Benjamin Graham, Warren Buffet, Michael Burry.

Growth investing: buy whatever grows (earnings, revenue, even DAU are all flavors of growth investing). VC investing/startup investing is classic growth investing. PG on the topic: http://www.paulgraham.com/growth.html

Growth stocks are usually overpriced because of hype (looking through rose glasses), but can still be good, as the last 10 years shows.
Somewhat related: Boomerang https://www.seas.upenn.edu/~harmony/ Discussed here at least once: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=565874

The title made me think of Boomerang, this looks like it has rather different use cases in mind.
“Look at Tim, he’s 16 and already 6’ tall. Why can’t the rest of you actually try to be tall, like Tim. You’re just slacking, sitting there at only 5’4”.”
Yeah, the world would probably be a better place if the default in a column definition was NOT NULL rather than NULL.

That's not really relevant to this discussion, though -- once you do have a nullable column in your schema, it doesn't make sense in the Go layer to pretend you don't.
About NTFS, the less said the better.

("If you can't say something nice ...")

Even Microsoft is abandoning it as a place to keep source code. At least, their own source code. Windos is not built from a tree on NTFS because it's too slow.
Space is very conservative due to its nature. Even (or especially) at the offset.

When you mission planning and construction takes several years, you can’t just go in and swap parts for “cutting edge” and “best-of-breed”. Mission parameters are locked several years before the actual mission takes place and are based on tech that was considered safe, sound, and stable by the time parameters are locked.

So, when the mission flies, you get 6-8 year old tech that flies in it.

The combination of all the components is usually bigger than the sum of its parts (that is it could be pushing the envelope of what mankind can achieve), but it’s usually built on top of some very boring things.
Yeah that's a pretty good guess. Growth generally means a company is expensive relative to it's earnings, profits, or book value. Ratios like P/E (price to earnings), and P/B (price to book) can be used to identify/classify a growth company. Higher these ratios, the higher the stocks exposure to "growth".

A value company is the exact opposite, a stock with low ratios. As you might have suspected, value has been clobbered in the last 10 years, and a bunch of Chicago school economists are pissing their pants (Fama, French, etc).

V
Also, knowing math will make you think about how you could solve the problem, while everyone else's first reaction is "there is probably already a library for that". And there usually already is a library that does a similar enough thing.

Therefore, knowing math will leave you endlessly frustrated, because the kinds of tasks you would like to do are exactly the kinds of tasks you shouldn't be doing.
the thing I'd like to see:
implementations in "ispc vs asm vs intrinsics_msvc vs intrinsics_clang vs intrinsics_gcc" on Intel and AMD CPUs. those "quake has now 300 FPS" things tell me exactly nothing. (read: i am more interrested in testing new features)
That's the opposite of a nuclear missile. Those are useful now (deterrence) until they are not (when they are used).
The SRO link was provided for this quote:

Between 1955 and 2013, almost one million SRO units were eliminated in the US due to regulation, conversion or demolition.

Military barracks and college dorms are not hugely different from SROs. Most people who join the military do so at age 18, the same age most people start college.

I don't readily have some percentage for how many youth were housed in SROs, but both college dorms and military barracks strike me as a lingering form of that legacy from a time where Americans generally figured a single adult didn't really need a full apartment, they just needed a room to sleep in.

I'm still trying to to put together stats, but it's a problem space I've studied for years. In a nutshell, our current housing policies and resulting housing stock were born of policies created post-WW2 for the generation that produced the Baby Boomers.

Thus, it is all posited on a nuclear family model with a breadwinner father, homemaker mother and 2.5 kids. Meanwhile, our demographic has diversified away from the nuclear family. People are getting married later, having children later, having fewer children, etc.

There is a huge mismatch between our housing stock and our housing needs.
Sure, and those are usually referred to as "overlay journals". They exist, but the thing that has been keeping the entire system in place now is how existing journals have a reputation upon which the academic career evaluation process is built. That allows publishers to charge ridiculous amounts of money, so they're quite keen on the current situation.

More here: https://medium.com/flockademic/the-ridiculous-number-that-ca...
If you find it too broad then just narrow it down in your mind. You won't be left with the null set.
What are the odds of guessing that URL? It appears it would be far more difficult than guessing the user account password.

URL consists of uppercase, lowercase, 0-9 and is 17 characters in length- that's 1.28E65 dudes. That's enough combinatholions you could probably make a URL for every photo ever taken for all of human history and never find one in a billion years.
No, although it has indeed threatened to do so and then did not do it often in the past, in July 2018 they cut off several institutions in Germany: https://www.projekt-deal.de/elsevier-news/

Similar things have happened in a few other European countries.
Reader mode?
I believe OP is referring to:

* https://3dprint.com/103289/open-source-3d-print-sundial/

* https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_sundial

Not to diminish the advance demonstrated in the paper.
To modify an older UK saying "nothing so sanctimonious as a newspaper journalist"

The original is about a certain police force and was by Winston Churchill
There's an inherent semantic mismatch here. SQL scalars have a dimension (NULL) that Go scalars don't have, so Go scalars just don't have enough information to represent SQL values. You have to put that dimension somewhere. Rather than using Go's separate dimension of nil-ness of pointers, you could put it in a separate boolean return value, or wrap it in a struct (see C#'s Nullable<T>), or make it queryable with a separate method (like IsNull(index)). Whatever it is, it also has to be two-way, so you can write NULLs as well as read them.
What you've said is not profound. When you go around saying "the sky is blue" people aren't wrong to assume you meant something relevant, rather than just tossing out vague and trivial statements.
The story is about a man who died 48hrs after his wife at age 101. There are not that much "buying groceries, cooking and cleaning" in 48hrs, and not many 101 years old in the grocery store.

"Often, it’s unrelated to any accident or cardiovascular incident, but sometimes it is related. That can be part of the stress reaction to grief."

"It’s just the difference between men and women and how we’re socialized,” she said. “Connection helps us negotiate old age. Independence does not do us well.”

Social relations, social support network, social contact, all of it is connected with stress management. Traditional gender roles where men prioritize work over their social live is correlated with smaller social network. If the goal is to live a long life with as little stress as possible then prioritizing time with children and spending time building social connections is much better than being at work.

However not being at work puts men at the lower end of the social ladder which also correlate to a smaller social network and increase stress. Social status is one of the bigger factors when predicting stress in both humans and animals alike.
> STEM people are not typically taught negotiations, sales, political science, marketing, or business

Yup!

> we're often given this conceit that we're above all that, which I think keeps us stupid and cheap.

I was thinking along these lines some years back after finally realising that (i) I was underpaid; and (ii) I had no idea how to negotiate effectively; and (iii) that there are many opportunities in life to negotiate, and getting better at negotiation from "I don't even recognise that this situation is a negotiation" to "this situation can be negotiated, here's my very awkward and mediocre effort at doing that" would have a much higher return on investment than learning yet another technical or mathematical thing.

> point of an undergrad degree is to produce credulity

I went through a period of suspecting similar things: if there's a STEM education pipeline that products highly specialised technicians and engineers who aren't equipped with knowledge and skills to navigate and exploit a commercial environment or hierarchical political organisations, isn't the pipeline doing what employers might want? Producing very useful and focused and naive "resources" who don't understand their own value. Tools to be applied.

I'm not sure how much I genuinely agree with this. But perhaps some part of it is true, with the STEM pipeline being tuned to serve the interests of employers and universities and government, but not necessarily the people going through it.

If you're thinking along these lines, check out the book "disciplined minds". The author's argument is roughly that the major part of graduate education is political: demonstrating that you can serve the interests of your masters and perform creative and intelligent work on the problems you are assigned, within the constraints you are assigned.

It's a good read but probably far less actionable than cracking open a few books about how to get better at negotiation, or marketing, etc.
Someone once pointed out to me I had a tendency to momentarily scowl when complimented and then pretend I hadn't heard it.

Made sense because compliments made me feel weird, even though I freely gave them out.

Since then I've trained myself to smile, make eye-contact and say "Thank you, I accept your compliment with confidence," before returning to the matter at hand.
Look for director and VP level roles at small to mid sized startups?
You weren't challenged because the school system regards every child who gets an A as a success, full stop. That they put no effort into doing so or were capable of learning the requisite material three years before is immaterial. The smart label is irrelevant compared to the incentives teachers and administrators labour under and they get nothing for helping children fulfil their potential. They’re judged by average achievement on tests set for average children.
Yeah this RGB-everything trend in PC building is how I know I’m getting old.
> Current research from AQR seems to suggest that HmL isn't actually a persistent factor [...] Also current research by AQR suggests that that value is more structural, and is a real risk premia.

I'm lost. HmL is the classic "value" factor (as in the 3-factor model of Fama and French: market, size and value). I don't say that's the best definition possible (clearly it's not) and I know other definitions exist (but HmL has the advantage of being available for a century). For what it's worth, I prefer cash-flow-based metrics and total shareholder yield (dividends + buybacks + debt reduction).

AQR use an improved definition (using data as current as possible) but I don't think it's terribly different: "The bottom line is that while the standard approach to value was a reasonable and conservative choice that has served the field well, it is not the best possible choice."

https://www.aqr.com/Insights/Research/Journal-Article/The-De...

In their latest publication ("Factor Premia and Factor Timing: A Century of Evidence", that I've not yet read) they say:

"We follow simple value measures used in the literature to capture “cheap” versus “expensive” securities within an asset class. For individual equities, we use the book-to-market ratio following Fama and French (1992, 2012) and Asness, Moskowitz, and Pedersen (2013). For global equity indices, we use the aggregate 10-year cyclically-adjusted price-to-earnings ratio CAPE (value-weighted average P/E ratio for all constituent firms in the index)."
Could it be that we are better these days at more accurate valuation? (e.g. better analytics?)
While I've seen his posts (eg on atptour.com), he is usually noticing correlation that might not be causation: eg. take a look at his "second serve win rate" article — https://www.atptour.com/en/news/second-serves-nadal-federer-...

It's obvious that it simply has good baseliners (players likelier to win a point once the ball is in play) and big 2nd servers at the top. But there's no data to support this, other than my gut feel of seeing big3 and Isner in there. But what about Kohlschreiber?

While I am sure he does better work for his clients, he seems to have access to shot-by-shot data which I think is most valuable.
Believe me, it’s much worse being considered not intelligent instead. I knew so many people growing up that were orders of magnitude more intelligent and accomplished than me (and I still do).
They weren't stupid, they just had very limited knowledge and experience to draw on, and very limited tools.

Most importantly they didn't have the ability to directly edit their own genes.
You know startups start you know start small Apples initial seed capital was a few thousands I believe.

The UK has something similar for small companies the EMI share schemes - all of the employees where I work have these options.
Wow, great source, thanks.
Yes. Only more like "I'm such an amazing teacher, that's why he's so tall. But you slackers aren't even trying and it's making me look bad!"

I was the youngest kid at home and I learned to read at age four because my long-suffering, doting older sister reread me the same book a jillion times at my insistence. The poor woman could still quote the book in her forties.

Most of what I knew had nothing whatsoever to do with school.

Plus, it winds up being code for "You should all beat him up in the bathroom every chance you get!"

Gee, thanks.

(No, I was not literally beaten up in the bathroom.)
> First, organizations that employ software developers don't choose programming languages and toolchains because they are "fashionable"

Citation needed
Special keywords like `fn` make parsing simpler. Trailing return types are useful in languages that support generic programming, because they make it easier to write a function whose return type depends on the types of its generic inputs. Even C++ has this feature now, using decltype and arrow notation:

template<typename T, typename U>
auto add(T t, U u) -> decltype(t + u)
{
return t + u;
}

C++ is notoriously hard to parse. Consider the "most vexing parse", or the fact that refactoring tools for C++ are always flakier than their Java / C# / Go equivalents, or the fact that https://cdecl.org/ exists. New languages in the "expressive, high performance" niche cannot continue to be held back by C++ syntax.
Day in the life of a Japanese salaryman in Tokyo [video]
It might not be an easy problem, but it's not a problem that has to be tied to publication, and it's not a problem that has to be pay-to-win.

(Disclaimer: I'm part of a project that tries to sift the good from bad without those things.)
In a lot of environments this is a terrible idea. In private environments exposing build manifest information is a good idea, but not so that you can alert at 1 month. Where I work, software that's 2-3 years old is considered good - mature, tested, thoroughly operationalized, and understood by all who need to interact with it on a daily basis. Often, consistency of the user experience is better than being bug free.
Not for <version>, or just for <version>. Rather, for being able to designate header names without worry about what files have been shoveled into random directories.

It really is on the compiler implementers for not providing a better accommodation to this very predictable problem.

That said, fixing the autoconf scripts may be the most immediate route to sanity for the "config.h" / <version> case, eliminating the problem at its source.
Not all of them, to be sure, lambdas and in particular their capture list syntax is solid. By no means is that universal though, for instance, move semantics.

std::move doesn't move anything, it casts an object as a movable reference (equivalent to static_cast<T&&>). The compiler doesn't preclude you from accessing the old object (or say anything at all) and there's no guarantee it actually did get moved, it's just a hint. That's not real move semantics, it's a shoddy knock-off.

You also have to manage a new constructor, new reference type and the opt-in because the default remains not using move semantics. Worse yet, there's varying agreement on what you can or should do with the source of a moved value, the STL containers will all continue to let you use the old value, it's just empty now. That's not standard behavior because there is none, and it's de facto now because it's in the STL. What a nightmare. [1]

std::variant is supposed to be associated values on enums, but of course, it doesn't do that either. You don't match, you create a new struct with a bunch of operator() methods on it [or overload a lambda?!] and throw it at std::visit. You can only have one variant of each type. Then it throws exceptions if you start mucking about in ways you shouldn't. There's no context. It's dreadful. [2]

[1] http://yacoder.guru/blog/2015/03/14/cpp-curiosities-std-move...

[2] https://www.bfilipek.com/2018/06/variant.html
Being a new dad, this is something I've begun thinking a lot about. Reading about CBT (Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy) has shed some light on this issue for me. I think the core problem is when a child is taught that their value to the family and to society is based on extrinsic rather than intrinsic factors.

If you are made to believe that you are valuable as a human because you are x, y, or z subjective determination (smart, beautiful, athletic, etc.) and not simply because you are you, then you're likely to be driven and motivated to maximize this 'edge', but you'll also be mostly unhappy regardless of what you achieve, because there will always be others who make your achievements along that axis seem like nothing in comparison. And even if you are the absolute best in the world at something, you will always feel chased and hunted, like the thing that makes your life worthwhile is constantly hanging by a thread.

This doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive to do great things or encourage our children to do the same if they're inspired to. But before that, we need to learn to be satisfied with a simple life just existing in the world as ourselves without any extraordinary achievements.
Because people don’t choose random passwords on the whole. So for every person who is revealed to have used zxcvbnm1234567890 as a password, there is a chance others have too. Obviously not for every password, but every large leak of actual passwords adds some that will match elsewhere.
Generally, you shouldn't be sharing your private photos with people who are actually trying to spread them past the intended audience.

The encryption in this case would be to protect against accidental sharing. A group of people that wants to share private photos among themselves could agree on a key which they all keep a copy of. Then they can upload photos encrypted with that key and pass around the links to those photos. Once the initial key is distributed all that they are passing around are links to the photos. If someone goofs and passes one of those links to someone outside the group, no harm done.
That 2-decade-old article took some 5+ pages to thoroughly explain its ideas. Turns out it was (and still is) pretty compelling, and the changes in these past 2 decades don't really affect what it's saying.

You, who've surely carefully read the article, understood it in its entirety, and played around with the notion to get a feel for its upsides and downsides, very insightfully reduced it all down to "very bad advice" with zero elaboration. You find that compelling?

I would be careful with those "first-order approximations".
In many jurisdictions, "BY USING THE SERVICES, YOU AGREE ..." language is legally meaningless.
This exact "vulnerability" is very commonly reported to public bug bounty programs. You've given one of the two major reasons it's almost always rejected.

(The other being "sure, you can see the photo if you know the URL, but the URL is impossible to enumerate or guess". If you posit that the recipient discloses the URL to a malicious third party... you're back at scenario 1, where the recipient directly discloses the photo instead.)

This finding doesn't appear to be listed on Google's master page of ineligible vulnerabilities ( https://sites.google.com/site/bughunteruniversity/nonvuln ), but the most likely outcome of this Medium post is that... it gets listed, and nothing else is done.
> 1. Funding agencies should not permit this. If I were to fund public research, the results should be public under an appropriate license.

And more and more are they doing that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_S

Unfortunately, the US is still not on board - that would make a major difference.
And this is how you get the entire Internet locked behind login pages.

Abusing free and open leads to people locking down free and open.
They aggregate the signatures but the proofs of identity exist on disparate publicly viewable sites/applications. They commit the state of the signature chain on the public blockchain. So I wouldn't call it completely "centralized"/trusted where you're blindly trusting their SQL database is correct but not "perfectly" decentralized/trustless either.
So steeples fingers exactly why do you think its wrong to reward risk - there are good economic reasons for taxing capital gains differently to income and its due to the increased risk.

Or do you have a political argument against this? don't forget this is not just the Zuckerberg's of this world its ordinary developers like you and me
Ask HN: (Startup School 2019) Advice for cofounders about to work on MVP?
Background: I(technical) have an idea/product that I've been looking for help with. I met a person(non-technical) in the startup school directory with a similar product/vision. We have talked and will be working together during Startup School (10 weeks) on our MVP. I want to do things the right/healthy way, so we can maximize value from working together.

Is there any advice you have for us on cofounding, or working together generally?

Topics that come to mind are:
- Expectations
- Healthy relationship if we continue working together after MVP phase
- Agreements
- Communication
- General early stage do's and dont's
How valuable is that legally? If my bot is scraping that automatically, have I then agreed to that?
as long as basic things like __alignment__ are still fundamentally broken I simply do not care about the syntax.
(I mean it doesn't get anything more basic than this, no?)
Nevertheless it is technically pretty impressive if you take the computers of that time, esp those made in Russia, into consideration. The Russians where into unmanned space exploration pretty early.
NTFS is case-sensitive, Windows applies case-insensitive matching for reads by default.
LED's can't add to much to the price can they? Although I'd also like an option not to have extra electronics bolted on if I don't want them.
And given the preponderance of traditional liberal arts types in the City and Wall Street your basing this assertion on
?