skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
All else aside, I realized that if you add hosting and assume dogfooding, GitLab's product is a platform made for building, configuring and running the platform you're building, maintaining and configuring... It feels Hofstadterian from several angles.

> Idera acquired Travis CI

This is disingenuous. That acquisition is not a validating example.

That aside, I don't feel a need to read in as much passive-aggressiveness as everyone commenting does. It's a bit of rivalry, sure.

Resource-usage aside, I was happy self-hosting GitLab for years.
So $860 or so per month to own a car. “Included in your lease” doesn’t mean you don’t pay for it by the way.
I have lived in London and India when I was younger... I never wanted to move to the us but did because my parents moved here
Oh you could order the cab. That you could do. Whether you'd get a cab, now that's a different thing.
MD to WV is nothing like the difference between Mexico or Guatemala to the US.
That describes all of Python, to an APL programmer.
It seems like it would be so much easier to tax the TV's.
>Nobody was ever convinced by being screamed at.

I don't think that qualifies as tone.
You have to realize how small the group of people is who can regularly afford to hire other people to perform services for them (which is what a taxi is). You're in that group, so the problem for you is convenience of hailing. But most people just can't afford to hire others to perform services for them on a regular basis. And that will never change, since it's inherent to the distribution of incomes in the population.
DSpot: Generates missing assertions in JUnit tests
You probably mean Aeschylus’ Orestia but I like the idea of being cursed to utter prophesies that no one would listen to as shadow banning.
Personal responsibility works both ways. Just because Uber is an organization doesn't mean they shouldn't be beholden to an ethical, and equal, working arrangement that is fair to both parties. The difference here is, as others have noted, Uber has entire departments devoted to maximizing their profits with little to no care for the driver. It's clear Uber always only wanted human drivers as a way to bootstrap development into a completely driverless service. What Uber is failing on is spreading themselves too thin. They're focused on both global expansion to compete with rivals AND sinking exorbitant capital into R&D for things that don't seem to be playing out as fast as they'd like. I said it in a thread before Uber went IPO but nobody should have expected the street to be good to Uber. I realize this was as a way for them to get to the next level, but I believe history will reflect poorly on Uber as lesson learned in what was a great idea that turned into a greedy model that eventually backfired. I only hope ride-sharing lives on in a way that is better positioned to fund the driver. I think it's clear there's a model that supports the back end services with the bulk of the revenue going to the driver that is sustainable.
I see these problems from a different angle than the usual commentators. I continue to ask myself: Why is mobile used for important things, e.g., banking, payments, etc.?

A great example is authenticating a person's identity via possession of a SIM card, i.e., their mobile number. If one can switch SIM cards, then one can switch identities. This flexibility is not a flaw in mobile communications; the ease-of-use is what makes mobile so useful. However it is silly to pretend mobile is as safe as landline for all uses. Mobile may be altogether more useful than landline -- few could argue otherwise -- and at the same time it can be entirely inappropriate for use in important things like banking. This concept seems non-existant. Instead the prevailing thinking is all-or-nothing.

In addition to "convenience", mobile has introduced a new class of problems when used for important things like banking and payments. These problems either do not exist or exist at a much lower scale with respect to landline. Who owns landline service? Crooks?

From where I stand, the risks of using mobile for important transactions outweigh the benefits. Unfortunately, I also see that "convenience" continues to prevail over common sense. I am willing to sacrafice convenience for peace of mind. Meanwhile banks and others push harder and harder for customers to use mobile, including as a means of verifying identity.
Fully loaded cost is assumed to be $0.55 (or something close) by the IRS. That's $0.33 per km or $10.56 for his trip, saving $10 (or $20 return) each day.
In my area of the US, calling dispatch would get you a ride only when things are not busy whatsoever. Once there is any level of demand, the service will send the call to the fleet but no one is required to fulfill it.
Great question.

Not sure I have an 'answer' but think it has something to do with the demand for money today vs the demand for money tomorrow.

Lots of the world's money is being held in the hands of those with...a lot of money.

Those people tend not to need money to spend it, and are looking for places to park it. Meaning there is a large supply of money today.

Meanwhile, lots of people need money, but there are fewer and fewer places where money can go and get a 10%+ return, so the demand for money today isn't that hot.

If supply is up, and demand is down, the price goes...down.

The 'price' of money today vs money tomorrow is basically the interest rate. So lots of supply, not much demand, and the price has collapsed.

Now why demand and supply are in that position, that's another (harder) story, and one that I've yet to see a good synthesis of.
Yes. But most every company makes the world a better place in a way. People pay less for products and services than they get in value - otherwise they wouldn't pay. So everyone ends up better off. There are things like negative externalities that complicate the picture.

In the specific case of uber, people benefit hugely from the service over the old way of how taxis worked (I know, I live in a place where ride sharing is illegal.) Uber's drivers can be thought of as exploited, but they're all there willingly, so I don't buy that for the most part. I've met so many drivers doing it parttime, entrepreneurs, students, retirees. They're better off for having options in general. Nobody is putting a gun to their heads.
Tasks are further broken down into granular tasks until we
have small chunks that do not take more than 2 hours. From
here, the final estimate was simply the addition of these
2-hour tasks. At the end of this exercise, I not only arrived
at an accurate estimate but also had all minute details about
the project figured out.

LOL pull the other one it's got bells on
Hmm FED rate is NOT negative?
Because now you're proposing that people be charged for something even if they don't use it and don't want it.
Yeah, Apple has this feature, too.
Evidence is mixed: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/07/business/uber-drunk-drivi...

Most people who drive drunk aren't doing it because they're desperate and have no other option, they're doing it because they're drunk assholes. They will still do it even when they could get a Lyft for $8. They're drunk.

> I couldn't even imagine trying to get home without lyft or uber in many circumstances.

Ok, but people must have managed it somehow 10 years ago, right? Your college and your city have not changed very much in that time. It truly is not that hard to take turns with your friends staying sober once in a while, or just stay over at a friend's place and then leave in the morning.
Yu-Gi-Oh is pay to win. The continuous power-creep ensures it.
You only have the "show dead" option on your profile when you have a certain amount of karma IIRC
Not sure why I bother anymore because people don't appreciate these types of comments, but I am convinced the solution is to replace the monopoly companies with public decentralized protocols that will enable a large shared network of customers to be serviced by a competing field of service companies that plug into it.
I've heard the "kernel extension guy" story at my last job; it's fairly well-known there although it wasn't a "completely obvious change", it was heavily obfuscated and possibly done over several PRs in order to sneak it in. Hadn't heard any subsequent stories though, including the swap story of the rest of the article.
The notion that clicking a button to buy something using the pre-entered billing information on the account was able to be patented is absurd. It's not an invention, it's just a feature of that particular website. Patenting the notion of clicking once to do something so that competitors have to require users to click 2 or more times... it's difficult for me to even describe how ridiculous it is.

Imagine if other companies started patenting other numbers of clicks. Like B&N patenting 2 click checkouts. Apple patenting 3 click checkouts... this is clearly what patents were intended to be used for.
There are not ethical uses for facial recognition that we couldn't do with better, older and younger technologies.
What led you to this idea?
From $5 Phone Calls to Global Tweet Chats: The Changing Face of Communication
That's so messed up. Just because lady liberty doesn't have a wallet-full of cash, we're going to ignore our better nature. Patents are meant to protect the small-time inventor, not the giants who are already eating fat.
Yes, Mesa/Gallium is much faster than AMDGPU-PRO and Windows driver junk.

Windows OpenGL driver is so bad that running it through ANGLE with DX backend is faster.
> People disagree on this. Warren Buffet for example famously argues that SBC is a real expense even if non-cash, just like depreciation.

There isn't much to disagree about. It's a real cost against shareholders (that's what Buffett is talking about) and it is not an expense against the business operations such that it depletes your cash or harms cash flow (the point a parent comment was making).

Putting it broadly, stock compensation is primarily a hit against existing shareholder ownership. It debases their ownership of present or future profits.

Uber could simultaneously produce $5 billion in positive cash flow from operations and issue $20 billion in stock every year to employees. They'd have a profitable business at the operational level and be drowning shareholders in dilution.
Why would people not buy extra properties with these mortgages “just in case”?
Especially the 10 year one seems low risk and worst case you have a property after 10 years?
The solution is to replace the monopoly companies with public decentralized protocols that will enable a large shared network of customers to be serviced by a competing field of companies that plug into it.
Exactly so. A face is an identifier, not an authenticator.

No biometric should ever unlock any lock by itself. It should only determine which thing-you-know or thing-you-have is usable for unlocking that lock.

So if your front door recognizes your face, it decides that the RFID fob you typically keep in your pocket is good enough to unlock whenever that gets close enough to read, or that hearing the vocal sounds for "rezrov" or "open up" is an acceptable key.

Otherwise, a housebreaker could take some photos with a telescopic lens and print your face onto a mannequin head with hydro-dip printing or silicone-pad transfer printing, and unlock your house with it. Forever. Or at least until you get a new face.
It seems like this applies to any sort of counterparty risk, though - if you buy a bond with negative interest rates, there is no guarantee that they will pay it back, or that there will even be an organization to pay it back. In fact, with negative interest rates, there's an incentive to borrow as much as you can, just let it compound, and never pay back the money.

...come to think of it, this explains a lot about today's perma-bubble world.
Right, but they wouldn't have a monopoly on being a taxi service. And literally every other business where you're managing a fleet of equipment is not a particularly special business. Why would Uber be any different?
If "something" happens, by the time the police are contacting you it's no longer an emergency.

Responding to an ambiguous worry of an emergency that may never even occur during your lifetime by allowing yourself to be continually interrupted by spammers (traditional call-based and new app-based) is actually a decent illustration of the overarching societal problem.
Yes, this map is based on the iPew map.

The data is sourced from the HashPlane threat intel network.

The data to the websocket is almost real time but its sampled so its not a complete threat feed. If you want to use the data please drop me a note.
I think this is a sign not to worry that much about it.
You lose wayyyyy to much of the competitive parts of the game online, online is statistics based only, you completely lose the skill part(bluffing, reading your opponent, fake-outs, etc) of the game online.
allana, your comment has been voted into invisibility :]
To quote the legendary Judge Learned Hand from nearly a century ago (on a different but analogous subject): "Courts have descanted upon the abuse again and again, but the antlike persistency of [patent] solicitors has overcome, and I suppose will continue to overcome, the patience of [Patent Office] examiners, and there is apparently always but one outcome."

Lyon v. Boh, 1 F. 2d 48, 50 (S.D.N.Y. 1926), https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=969659756696519...
I like it! It's alot nicer than my json formatter https://oil-comma.glitch.me/
Sorry, but I have to disagree. R&D is the life blood of a tech company. Some problems are hard. Hard problems take a lot of time and money to solve. If they spend $2B solving a problem that allows them to make $10B in revenue long term, I would say that is a worthwhile investment, wouldn't you?

Frankly, the R&D spend is the least of their worries. They recently trimmed some fat from their marketing department[1] but the subsidized rides problem continues to be the biggest issue they face financially.

[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/29/technology/uber-job-cuts....
> Because we're a paid product, we have little incentive to read your thoughts or strip-mine your data. We're in the business of making you feel better; we're not reading your deepest darkest secrets to figure out how to sell you shoes or something. We don't want to know your thoughts. Unless someone explicitly tells us otherwise, we treat them like passwords.

I trust you when you say this, and I trust that you are being sincere. I do not trust the incentive structures of Silicon Valley to permit you to adhere to this principle.
I think the GP has a point though.

It's not as though UBER going under is going to tank the economy, but it will be a major unicorn going under, causing the entire silicon valley money-losing model to be questioned, leading to trouble raising money, layoffs which drag down the rest of the economy.

Similar to the 2000 crash.
This assumes that's a helpful dichotomy, which implies categorizing people into such groups, which every indication I've seen those labels are overly broad, highly inaccurate, or used whenever convenient to imply some guilt-by-association. To me they only work to be dismissive of people regardless of the merit or quality of their points and splits everything down ideological lines, which naturally pushes people to protect their side with an us vs them view of things.

HN should work towards having thoughtful discussions and providing useful contributions. It shouldn't be about tolerating particular political views or not. That shouldn't be the mod's job.
I have considered that. My objection is that Uber is very unlikely to be the entity that solves AV and so they will be buying the fleet (assuming one can). At that point, most of the Uber incumbency is of little value. Yes, they could likely raise the capital to transition the company, but others would be doing so without the cannibalism problem.

AVs are not coming soon, in any case. The consensus finally seems to e waking up about this.
Next time you get screwed, in any capacity, you should live by your words and just assume your "personal responsibility".

You bought a car that was missing a very obscure but very critical peace in its brake assembly, and now it's embedded in another car in the middle of the intersection: Whatever happened to your personal responsibility in making sure that the car was complete?
on the other hand you can push docker images with typos from popular ones. harder to target specific targets, but sure to get a good volume.

this list is great.
I do think it is an underappreciated point, but also arguably why politics should be part of discussions. Not having to talk politics is really something that is earned. It is when you have a solid enough foundation to your field or profession that you feel secure enough in to not have to address it. In computing or software, we don't really have that. So people run out of vocabulary rather quickly, ending up in arguments like nationalism or free speech because there often isn't an intermediate layer of something like regulation or duty that you can be discussed by everyone. That is ultimately more a factor of the "everything goes" attitude, because if "everything goes" everything is also relevant to the discussion.
Because the principal is due each month and the rent gives a negative cost of carry? Plus future falls expected due to demographics?
Fed isn't but Japan and many European central banks are. Bank of Japan and ECB are both at -0.1%.
You still need a down payment and cash flow for monthly payments. It's just that the monthly payments contain no interest portion, just principal. Danish real estate is expensive, not many people can afford to make payments on multiple properties.
An untruth stated calmly doesn’t become true. A truth stated passionately doesn’t become false. This is at the heart of why most appeals to emotion are logical fallacies.

Having said that, people being emotional certainly goes a long way toward explaining why pleasant people are more likely to be listened to.
> replacing the bottom end with desperate deals where "non employed" employees ... make a pittance, while the organizing company gets a cut from millions of transactions

The funny thing here is that, apparently, the "non employed employees" were still getting more than what they actually earned the company- which therefore isn't getting a nice cut, but rather a debt, from millions of transactions. So this looks like VC-founded low end jobs.
Codesec.co LLC Security Hardening Tips –[Routers and Firewalls]
Scabby the giant inflatable protest rat may be banned from picket lines
I don't have a problem with Apple showing whether the Battery is replaced or using genuine Apple Battery. My problem is that replacement done by Apple is both too costly and too time consuming.

Current iPhone X / XS / XR Battery Replacement is $69, which is roughly double the price of being replaced on streets with similar battery. Now of course there are scammers who tries to replace a crappy battery, but going to well know Repair Shop normally prevent that from happening.

I would have no problem paying double the price for an Apple Store replacement, except not only would have I have to wait hours or days for replacement depending on which part of the cities, countries, world you are in. You will also have to wait and go into that awful Apple Store and try and get someone to help. What is an 30 to 45 min job elsewhere, in the worst case you could wait 45 min just to get someone in Apple Store.

Here I am paying double the price for worst experience.

But that is not the worst part.

Apple Refuse to replace your Battery if your screen is broken, has slight crack on the edge, water damage or whatever damage they claim it has. You will first have to pay and fix those damages.
Again I am perfectly fine with paying to fix it, except more than 99% of times Apple will quote you a price roughly 30 - 50% of your iPhone's that is now already 2 - 3 years old. And it makes much more sense to buy a new one instead. ( This remind me of the so call logic board damage I had with MacBook Pro 2 years ago. Sometimes I wonder why I am still using Apple )
Uber provides the network of drivers and customers. With less friction anybody can order a taxi for a fixed price that is known upfront in their app. In the old world the price of a ride was mostly determined at the end of the trip and you would be lucky if you paid a lower price than an uber.

Im not a fan of uber nor lyft, although I have to say I like the competition they offer. I hope Tesla delivers their Robotaxi and slashes the whole taxi pricing game.
Nobody's "keeping the topics sterile". Threads about "the ugly sides of technology" are common on Hacker News. Of the topics you mention, surveillance is frequently and massively discussed; as for Palantir, https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=story....

You may feel it's not enough, but nothing is ever enough: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme....
> more and more of this planet's 'productivity' is concentrating more and more in the hands of those who produce the AI automations.

Sometimes I think folks who think like this really need to get outside more. Yes, a lot of things are being automated, but (a) consider the janky quality of automation, because it's really not mature yet even in purely-software environments where everything can be controlled, and (b) consider the raw cost of doing it vs. the productivity savings and side effects. It's just not worth it for a lot of things and won't be until we have general-purpose AI and general-purpose robotic workers that can take on human-scale jobs. Even then, it might still be cheaper to get actual people in a lot of cases.

But even if so: as someone who implements something you might call automation, like most here, I have to ask: why is it exactly that I should owe a massive amount of my economic output to those who aren't outputting anything? At what point do I simply say "fuck it" and stop working too, because some ridiculous percentage of my income has to be applied towards feeding those who won't/can't/don't do anything productive?
FWIW, I find that the political discussions here are still a lot better than in most other places on the internet and sometimes I find them quite valuable.

For example, I have a pretty solid attitude against genetically enhanced food and where I live, there are quite some people who think likewise (central Europe). But through HN I learned, that there are other places in the world, where such food can significantly improve the lives of many humans and where educated people can't understand how on earth you can possibly be against using such technology.

I find such insights very valuable because it shows me how limited and filtered ones real-live perception can be.
It could have a <1Hz signal encoded on the average brightness of the screen.

It does look like something crazy that could be made to work reasonably well with a lot of polishing.
My guess: when Chase says "we felt it was a better decision for all parties" they mean "we realized we broke some kind of law without anybody noticing, and selling the debts to collections could turn up evidence of that in future litigation"
This is the longest-winded name for a "free market" that I've ever heard
This is 100% true for me as well. I am, in fact, willing to pay MORE for an Uber- or Lyft-like service than for a traditional cab, because the experience is generally much better.

However, I also have to acknowledge that I think I'm an outlier, because I have many friends (most of whom could easily afford it) who complain about prices every time this topic comes up. I think that as a society we'd be better off if people could truly internalize the truth of "you get what you pay for," and stop buying solely based on price, but that's not the world we live in.