skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It wouldn't surprise me to find out this is some kind of "business" - where you have an Amazon seller account post up various items charging only pennies, then you hire a bunch of people to purchase the products (so they are a "verified purchaser") then review them with high ratings (and maybe a few lower ratings just to make things look good).

Then somehow sell those SKU codes for the items onward where the item information (description, photo, title, etc) are swapped out - so now you have an instant "best seller".

This can also of course be done by an individual seller - they just get a good product, sell it, get some great ratings on it, then change out the information for another product but keep the SKU the same. Works best if the products are very similar (I've seen this too - where the reviews, if reading them carefully, seem to refer to say a USB thumbdrive, but what is being sold is an actual hard drive, or memory, or sdcard, etc).

The other way, of course, is to sell multiple products with different "colors" (but each is actually a different product). Then you have reviews all over the map, all for the same SKU - or at least in the same general comment mix for the product being sold. So now you don't know if the comment is referring to the product you want, or some variant of it...

All of that said, I can kinda understand why this is possible, even desirable - for Amazon to give that kind of control to the sellers. They could try to police it, but how do they police and enforce SKU usage and such, without also busting legitimate uses? That's probably the difficulty.

There's a similar problem with some sellers posting items up with insanely large prices (like a pack of gum for $10,000); from what I understand, this is done to prevent an item from being purchased when it is out of stock, or to keep the reviews (maybe in conjunction with SKU swapping?), or a few other reasons, with the idea that nobody will buy that product with such a strange high price on it (plus sorting moves it to the bottom usually). Unfortunately, this also screws up when you want to sort high to low prices, to find a possible "better product" that is priced higher because it is made differently and better than "regular ole' generics" (I faced this recently while looking for a shielded audio cable).

Here again, though, policing it would be nearly impossible - how is Amazon to determine that a particular package of gum isn't worth $10,000? For that matter, maybe there's a buyer out there looking for an elusive pack of gum and is willing to pay the higher price? Seems incredible, but I am certain there's at least one person out there ready and able to do so.
What humanitarian crisis? Justify your choice of words please.
This is an eye opener.

> [Google] employees discussed at length [on internal message boards] whether Trump’s win meant it’s time for a violent revolution. “How do people cope with this?” one employee wrote. “I’ve never been part of a military or war effort before. … I don’t know how useful I’ll be.”

It's about time Google tells people to take their political revolution talk somewhere else other than company internal discussion boards!

https://thefederalist.com/2018/01/10/19-insane-tidbits-james...
Every few months or so a new "yes the Koch brothers really are that evil" post makes the rounds, but interestingly not here (HN). Seems that the family is off limits.
I'm not sure I saw the GP "defending truly bad decisions", but the answer in such cases is to explain why the decisions are bad without breaking the site guidelines.

The guidelines are there to prevent the community from destroying itself, so they're a precondition for "helping our community to hold itself responsible" and other higher-order activities of that sort.
eBay's opaque feedback system and captive seller relationships aren't the answer. The core problem is that they don't make it easy to associate individual listings with specific feedback for those items. In combination with the increasing popularity of "private" items, this encourages exit scams, among other things. A seller might garner 100% positive feedback for selling 500 Beanie Babies or whatever at $0.25 each, marking all the listings "private," then switch to ripping people off for $25K on nonexistent cars or machine tools or whatever.

eBay could easily fix this in the common case where bulk sales are involved simply by adding a "Show feedback for this item only" feature. But they care even less about providing effective search tools than Amazon does, which is really saying something.

Regardless of the question, the answer from the customer's point of view should involve more transparency rather than less. None of the major online retailers seem to agree, least of all eBay.
But what is the alternative? The problem is diametric opinions end with two people (no company involved). What is the company to do to get people with opposing views to “get along”?

Let’s put up Tibet. Some people will have strong opinions on one side and another set will have strong opinions on the other side. (Most people will be indifferent).

How can the company manage that tension among people who work for them when those people believe the company has given them the freedom to pick a side and express that side and perhaps vocalize and ultimately mobilize?

I don’t see an obvious solution to this beside the traditional course. The present alternatives are even more “authoritarian” (i.e. firing the adherents of the wrong opinion, etc.)
Have you seen bad OOP code? It's an unreadable mess of ObjectManagerFactory classes where everyone mutates everything.

Have you seen bad functional code? It's an unreadable mess of monads, flatmaps and partial composition where you're not really sure how many arguments a curried function is whitholding.

Have you seen bad procedural code? It's an unreadable mess of nested if-else statements where you're not really sure what state the world is in.

There are no silver bullets, only different solutions to different problems
>Horwitt is spinning his poll to make it seem like free trade is not what the trade war will result in.

And you're spinning it as 2/3rds supporting Trump's tariffs. Which is not the poll's question.

>A majority of Americans support Trump

What has this got to do with anything, even if true? Which it is not, see below.

>Don't make the 2016 mistake of trusting polls again...

What 2016 mistake? 2 million more voted against Trump than votd for him. He won because the electoral college is effective gerrymandered because of demographic changes. So you have zero basis to state that a majority of Americans support Trump for now.

I mean, you're the one quoting a poll, and saying it shows that 2/3rds support Trump's tariffs.

Which is wrong on two levels, first, that's not even what the poll shows, second, even if it did, if you're right about polls being wrong, then the poll is useless to measure public sentiment.

Also, you cannot just make up things without telling us how you arrived at those assertions.
$1 Low-Power RISC-V MCU
Major book publishers sue Amazon’s Audible over new speech-to-text feature
The fire activity has radically decreased in the last years. The average isn't a good measure.
You mentioning micropayments made me think, I would probably pay more than 100 EUR/year for using a Google without ads and tracking (except what I opt-in to).

I mean seriously I would probably pay more.

I hope regulations from governments help bring google down in size instead of breaking it up for a monopoly. IT has been extremely lucrative.
I tend to buy mostly name brand stuff and books from Amazon (e.g. my TV, personal laptop, B&W laser printer, and water flosser came from Amazon). One exception is lightning cables, where I try to buy heavy duty, Apple certified cables, regardless of brand. Another exception is certain personal care items, like shampoo and conditioner, where if what I get is "fake," it won't be of much consequence.
It’s Product Management; Not Software Engineering
Who is "some"?
I do feel that I get more out of spending 30 minutes reading a book than I do out of 30 minutes browsing Twitter. Despite how addictive it is (and thus how much some part of me apparently enjoys it), I think I prefer pretty much any activity on my list of possible activities over puttering around with my phone: taking photographs, cleaning dishes, composing music, putting away laundry, writing software, pulling weeds, sleeping...

Seriously, I get more value out of effectively anything else over browsing trivial stuff on my phone.

Why then is it so easy to keep doing it?
Facebook’s Libra is an attempt to mask a promise as a token
Not every place where people discuss "politics" has to be a place for political battles.

People get into arguments and fights over football, for heaven's sake. Should we ban that, too?

I and my friends regularly discuss politics (on Discord, of all places) and we all have different viewpoints- everything from classical liberal to Bernie Sanders-socialist to conservative to libertarian and we all manage to get along- it's hard sometimes, and there are heated discussions, but we all leave having a good time, and, more importantly, we've learned something.

The way I see it, the problem here is that as political polarization increases, the need for frank discussion without hating people afterwards only increases, and the tolerance for it only goes down. If we want to recover even a little bit from the edge, stuff like Google's "no discussing politics" policy needs to be stopped, and replaced with "discuss politics politely or not at all" instead.
It is a good chapter to read to see their methodology even if you don't agree with the results. For example, comparing stricter/easier gun laws and prison times in different cities and not finding a correlation to the drop in violence since it was across the board.
The biggest barrier is that people don't want to pay for content. This has been the subject of endless discussions over decades and just yesterday there was a large HN conversation over too many video subscriptions causing people to turn to piracy again. Not to mention it negatively affects the vast majority of people who can't afford to pay for everything they consume.

It's possible to enable advertising while maintaining privacy and security. What was missing was legal and regulatory forces to push advertisers and adtech into it. Now it's here.
Use a Helm chart (or alternative)?

When you're writing YAML you can absolutely include from elsewhere (it calls it 'aliases', which is... Well, at least it exists) in multuple places - though annoyingly not from other files.

When you're reading (partially) generated YAML, (e.g. kubectl describe or edit) it's IMO a feature that everything is in its place with no indirection. (And as far as I'm aware this is YAML, not kubectl.)
There's no need to apologise, and perhaps my point wasn't clear. I'm trying to say that if you're looking for jobs, not having contact details in your profile is a bit ... well ... "odd". Surely you want people to be able to contact you.

But it's not just your email, it's having a link to a CV, or some sort of page that talks about what you can do, and what you're looking for. If I'm looking to employ someone (which sometimes I am, but not at the moment) I'm going to want to know that the person is a problem solver, and can anticipate problems and work either to solve them, or to avoid them. I want to see examples of what they can do.

So in the light of that, how does it look for you to ask about finding jobs, but not have anything in your HN profile? You might want to have a think about that.

You're not the first person to do this, and I'm sure you won't be the last. I just always find it a little surprising.
> I wonder if this has anything to do with the recently leaked posts that shows google staff used the google search front end to target specific demographics they expected to vote for a particular candidate and then were shocked and upset when a substantial minority portion of those populations voted for different candidates?

That's my thought. It sounds that the discussions were always inflamed and lively. But why the change now, right after all that stuff came out? I suspect they are afraid of more leakers, and are afraid of lawsuits which would trigger discovery and then all the internal politics will get dump out.
> most code you will encounter is object oriented.

Well - most code you encounter was written in a language that was designed for object oriented programming, like Java or C# (and, really, Python and Javascript). That doesn’t mean it’s actually object oriented or particularly well designed. I’ve been working mostly with Java for the past 20 years and every single Java-based system I’ve inherited has been the same big-ball-of-mud as the others, with almost every function declared static and classes declared because Java doesn’t work if you don’t type “class” somewhere. It’s never reusable, never unit-testable, and never modularized.
I see no reason why one should not be able to recognize a common desire and work to achieve it regardless on disagreement on other issues.

However when a person's point of view is objectively fallacious (Evangelical Christians, national socialists) and advocates doing harm or passing fallacious moral judgement of a class of people (Heathens, hedonists, homosexuals, jews) and that class of people includes you I do not believe you should ever be expected to tolerate or abstain from challenging that point of view.

If an individual is advocating harm to others and can't withstand scrutiny of their agenda then that's their problem. I don't see this any differently than suggesting you should avoid challenging sexual harassment or physical abuse in the place of work in order to minimize friction. Certain "points of view" should encounter friction at all times and from all sides, because they are reprehensible.
In what world does "hereby ordered" typically precede a bit of friendly advice?

"All my relatives are hereby ordered to depart a day early for the annual Christmas gathering, as storms are predicted for the I-80 corridor."
Organizational structure is a massive influence on any organization's outputs, and seems over and over to be substantially more important than the personal attributes or credentials of the pool of employees. This is discussed by Clay Christensen in the context of disruption tech theory, it's enshrined in hacker lore as Conway's Law, and I'm sure is well known across many other domains.

One could interpret the overall trajectory of Google here as reaching the limits of disruption-capable organizational design. It's likely they hit that limit some years back, and have just reached the point where they've internalized it enough to drop the pretense.

It's not all bad -- there are many things at which large corporate structures excel. They're just not typically the ones that are sought in Silicon Valley.
https://orgmode.org/ should help :)
Weaknesses of the Hacker Personality
Was it in the wild?
What I'm saying is that the first variable layer is of relatively constant thickness, compared to previous approaches which attempt to taper layer thickness to slowly introduce curvature.

The problem that results is the actual dynamics of the extrudate varies a lot, going through a fixed size nozzle: there's a relatively limited range of shapes that do not excessively impede flow (and risk jamming/clinging to nozzle/dragging) and are sufficiently smashed into the previous layer. So if you have layer thickness varying a bunch over an otherwise continuous layer, pretty easy to have poor adhesion in many places or pressure building and later overextrusion.

Also there's a fair bit of lag-- often hundreds of milliseconds- between extruder movement, pressure change, and extrudate geometry changes. When you're moving the nozzle at, say, 100mm/s over the surface, the uncertainty of this lag translates to a big uncertainty of where on the part extrusion thickness changes.
This is cool can I use it for my devices like my phone? I also can see using it on my Tesla screen
Anyone know if Huawei has a China-based foundry that can manufacture their designs, and how good they are compared to Intel/Samsung/TSMC?
I think they should give the option of completing a larger project on their own instead of whiteboarding questions. For example, Symantec gave a practice problem where you had to basically build a mini-virus checker with wildcards (* and ?) and they selected the submissions with the fastest times to interview. I really enjoy performance-based problems and trying to optimize threading, memory, and caching but whiteboard interviews don't really give me that opportunity to showcase those talents. I like solving big problems and whiteboard questions really test your ability to memorize trivial ones.

The actual interview was much less whiteboarding and more explaining your code to make sure you actually wrote it. It felt like a more classical interview where they aren't trying to see if you are full of BS because they already had an actual work sample that was representative of an actual type of problem likely to be experienced on the job.
I've been programming for a quarter of a century.

It has taken me a long time to realize that "dumb code" is the best.

Dumb code is easy to read.

Dumb code is concise and to the point, not attempting to address theoretical problems (necessarily).

Dumb code does not overthink the problem.

Dumb code helps you sympathize with the machine.

Dumb code has no weird blackbox behavior.

etc...
Reading all the words is a good idea. But even after doing so, you're left with one big problem: He does not have the authority to order that.
I agree that it's unreasonable to argue against having a discussion for the sake of decorum. If the discussion needs to happen, it needs to happen, but I think you're ignoring the fact that many anti-gun control advocates think the current state of affairs is fine. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you think a conversation is important to have because you believe that such a conversation would reshape the world in a way that is more closely aligned with your preferred policies. Anti-gun control advocates don't want that.

This is exactly why a lot of people don't discuss politics at work. You first sentence also kind of assumes that the side that believes the world is on fire is correct. It would probably be beneficial to allow the discussion of politics at work if the side that believed the world was on fire was indeed always correct, but sometimes they aren't, and what then?

I personally would prefer, for example, if someone didn't try to convince me to do something to save my immortal soul, regardless of how ardently they believe that my immortal soul needs saving.
It is like JavaScript: I don't hate JS itself, I hate spaghetti-code people write with it (but I do hate automatic type casting).

I don't hate C, I hate dangling pointers and buffer overruns.

I don't hate OOP, I hate over-engineered class hierarchies, state hiding and leaky abstractions.

I don't hate FP, I hate when people write a new undocumented DSL for each project just because "it is so easy in an expressive language like X".
> Mercurial has better hooks in place

We use the hell out of this at my company. Mercurial's hooks have made a wide variety of automatic tasks much easier to systematize across all our repos for any repo-related action that any dev makes.

Here's one of our use cases. Mercurial, at least in the early days, had much better support (IMHO) for large/binary files than git (perhaps git is on-par now, not sure). We needed some of the projects in our repos to be fully compilable against any binaries/assets at any point in time in the repo's complete history. We implemented this with a combination of Mercurial's first-party "largefiles" extension, high compression of our binaries/assets (via 7z), and a variety of scripts/hooks to (de)compress the relevant files whenever `hg commit`, `hg up`, `hg revert`, etc. is performed.

Sure, you greatly increase the size of a repo on whatever machines are serving it, but storage is cheap these days so who cares. Devs also have to deal with more disk space being used, but a) storage is cheap and b) it is trivial to clear old binaries/assets from their disk on an automated schedule. Whenever they update/revert to another revision/branch the binaries/assets download automatically anyway.
So liars are in a constant fight with fraudsters. It doesn't justify having regular people's privacy be collateral damage.
That specific finding was from what appears to be the 1997 QSM study [0], though the description I am familiar with it from (Mike Cohn’s Succeeding in Agile: Software Development Using Scrum, 2010, describes it as covering projects in 2003-2005 (the author, organization, and number of projects in the analysis, and the one result chart from the study that is in the article on the web [1] match between the book and the 1997 one, though, but the chart showing time to complete by team size isn't shown in the article.)

[0] https://www.qsm.com/blog/2019/4-key-studies-team-size

[1] https://www.qsm.com/articles/team-size-can-be-key-successful...
* Bolsonaro fired the director of INPE after calling deforestation data lies.

* Bolsonaro refused to answer about environmental policy when asked about it by Germany and Norway who contribute millions to the Amazon Fund, he subsequently told Brazil doesn't need that money and told Norway to send the money to Germany to help them reforest.

* One of his first actions in office was this one: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/02/brazil-jair-bo...
> everyone acted like I was crazy for not building in central air conditioning. (This is in New Hampshire)

Really? In NH? How many days a year it even reaches 90?
I've lived in Seattle for 1.5 years. I became numb to the hyperbole around the homeless problem here in 6 months. One side is talking facts, experimentation, and trying new things. The other side is talking feelings, fears, and taking every misstep as an opportunity to abandon any notion of solving the problem in an ethical way.

It is really interesting, especially on a site like HN, because the latter is directly contrary to the ethos of most startups.
Start with making rings. It sounds silly, but they’re small so they print fast so you’ll get to learn fast. Plus, people will enjoy them.

Containers is a great next step from rings. They’ll encourage learning about fit, coordinate systems, and support structures.
Also - if the item you purchase is small enough, it might be able to fit into one of those China Post "e-packets" (or whatever they call 'em) - which is basically a government subsidized free fast airmail shipping option.

Virtually bypasses customs it seems. But the parts have to be relatively small and fit into a padded envelope about 6x4" or something like that. I've gotten many electronic components in that manner, within a few days of ordering.

Of course, anything larger, and you're looking at weeks - mainly because of customs on both ends. Big enough, they stick it in a shipping container (in addition to customs) and it takes the slow-boat over the ocean.
this thing is 2.7 pounds, so there's a bit of a ways to go on miniaturization