skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I agree with everything you said, but this movement has been going on for a long time but and has been very bad at... hisss.. marketing.

These are complex topics and people don't want to put in the effort to understand them so this needs some top-shelf selling power. And there's no money to be made. Just freedom (as in speech).
I actually agree, but I don't see any reason why they should be a $40B company. Forbes or Bloomberg or someone compared them to other companies in the space, and valued them at $4B or so. That is still a great opportunity...unless you have invested $10B to get there.

It's not that there is no need for what WeWork does; it's that they do it too expensively, and are valuing themselves far too high.
I'm lucky enough to find cooking enjoyable and relaxing. It's something you have to do every day, so getting good at it has turned that hour-ish slot every evening into a fun and relaxing experience.
I think it's possible there could be advantages for a chain co-working space over independent ones, but it depends on how the market looks long term. Not saying that chain has to be WeWork, of course.

For instance, short term users, who pay the highest rates, could turn out to be a big part of the market. That could be business travelers, companies moving office or setting up offices, companies that need temp office work, etc. They may go for a well-known chain over an independent, just like business travelers often do with hotels. Similar with, as you mentioned, big companies that need to hire in a lot of different cities at once.

It's also possible a big chain could manage to offer better deals than a smaller player if they can negotiate with big, multicity landlords and other vendors or get some kind of special deals for members (e.g., discounts on software, or cheap lunch delivery/taxi service sharing drivers between members).

We also owns Meetup, and I could see WeWork or another chain finding ways to offer additional uses that we don't currently associate with coworking spaces. The advantage could be easy online booking for all kinds of meetings and events, maybe with added features like food and beverage catering.

A chain could also effectively become a marketplace for coworking and other temporary business space needs. Maybe you could book a spot for your company holiday party, or reserve a shopping mall kiosk for a week to do user testing, or even book space at a non-corporate-owned coworking space through your account.
> Is Monty Python lost on this generation?

Could you elaborate? Looks like a UK television thing from the 70s. I'm not familiar with UK television culture references.
Her story emphasizes that he had no other interest in talking to her. Wired obscures that. I don't think it was malicious, though.
Read the emails.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929-091320191420...

Then come back and read what I have to say.

There was nothing offensive or controversial in there. Not a one. The man only pushed to avoid letting the narrative people wanted to believe run away with the reputation of a friend (Minsky) before all the facts were in.

He's endorsing to let the justice system do it's work instead of letting a near tabloid level effort of the media hang a man's reputation out to dry. He's even willing to accept wrongdoing if that is what the facts spell out. He also asks the more extreme poster to the mailing list to provide evidence that it seems he is incapable of uncovering due to his commitment to only using Free Software.

If he's guilty of anything, it's being overconfident of the rationality of others in a world so tormented by those willing to turn even a hint of inconvenient independent thought into a sign of some disfigurement of one's essential humanity.

There are people out there who pose a threat to civil society and deserve civil/social ostracization. Richard Stallman is not the one in this case, as is evidenced by a willingness on his part to have his mind changed.

The media, if anyone, deserves to be ostracized for not actually digging into and presenting the original posts, and picking and choosing only the most controversial aspects of the man that weave the best narrative to draw clicks. If they had done their job, this would have been a non-story, as it would be clear the man was calling for calm in a discussion where passions were running high.

The FSF, and MIT handled the entire thing poorly. Instead of investigating, and not doing anything hastily, they caved to engineered histrionics, and also failed to demonstrate a bare modicum of scrutiny to establish the facts of the matter, or reach out to correct the media. Essentially they prioritized distance and public perception over ensuring the truth was known. Both proved to have betrayed fundamental principles that their respective institutions were set up to protect.
Observing that lots of people are concerned about affirmative action is not the same as advocacy for affirmative action. Observing and even criticizing discrimination in favor of white applicants is also not the same as advocacy for affirmative action.
I assume that is not a quote, as I can't find it anywhere on that page, yet you have made it sound like one.
The calculator that got me through engineering school in the early 90s. Excellent little machine, but I was a bit jealous of the guy with a 48S.
I was in Atlanta for a few years afterward (not my choice honestly) and wound up back in a much better situation and same location than I started before my move to Asheville. It was a humbling experience that I may not have gotten if I had stayed in the DC region, which also was never my preference either.
Sure. I can be more specific.

I write code working on CRUD apps and microservices and some security focused roles.

Value-creating would be something that provides utility to society at large so value to the world.

I was being paid money and I was very well compensated but I did not find the work challenging or interesting, I felt like a cog in a well-oiled machine and easily replaceable which I think are the majority of jobs out there.
No one put anything close to 10B into Facebook. Their largest single investor was Goldman Sachs at 450MM, after there was already a lot of other money in. Their total funding was 2.3B before IPO.
Enron was also trying to create bandwidth commodities that traded the same as energy, which was typical of Enron. Create a market, make use of the market and double dip on profits.

https://www.wired.com/2001/11/enron-a-bandwidth-bloodbath/
> I think leaving a job is a better protest than doing damage to your employer

You either don't protest or you're very bad at it
Prof.Damodharan has an excellent valuation on WeWork. The bottomline is WeWork as an $8 Billion company would be appropriate valuation.

Yes, WeWork has market-fit, no one denies that. Their problem is governance and risk management. On top of it, how would an unprofitable company with massive debt and contract obligations do during a down-turn.
SwissMicros make nice clones of classic HP calculators. They sell an HP-42s clone which runs Free42:

https://www.swissmicros.com/dm42.php
Interesting. Do you have any links or further info? Evaluating setting up a standard PG RDS instance or going Aurora PG Serverless.
Thank you for a specific suggestion. I have tried doing this and has worked for me, but I guess because of the short nature of internships, its difficult to build on it.
You're doing incredibly noble work. Ive bookmarked the site and will make great use of it. Thank you for working hard to protect data privacy, I hope you never stop.
My first thought as well. Plastic bottles are quite hard and almost unbreakable (and when they break, the pieces aren't micro); in contrast, clothing fibres made of plastic bend a lot, presumably break a lot and are very micro...
I had the feeling when watching DS9 that the role of Nog became greater and more complex than originally planned because of the high caliber of Eisenberg's acting. I don't have evidence to support this, but perhaps someone here knows more. Regardless, I thought his was among the best acting in the show.
Any game engine evolves towards serious complexity as time goes on. The question is, do you want to waste time building systems that a million man hours have gone into to make them resilient across a thousand different permutations of hardware? Or do you want to ship your game?

I've built a non-trivial engine active from around 2010 to 2015 that targeted all iOS and Android devices. Our test fleet of devices was enormous because we'd run into silly issues that were always device specific. My favorite, one particular phone with one particular driver version for the GPU did not correctly implement the ES 2.0 standard for constant defined variables. It caused our games to crash, and because of the scale of mobile this affected hundreds of thousands of users.

At this point you could not pay me to build an engine, because for anything that isn't a toy you end up having to solve these problems yourself.

Treating Unity as a rendering engine and asset loading system is not immediately "easy", but it's a very far cry from "hard". Dismissing it or other options simply because of unfamiliarity or a shallow distaste for OOP is ignorant at best and actively misleading otherwise.
Show HN: An API to find and extract text from images
This appears to be the report in question: https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/landmark-unite...

> Sea-level rise is accelerating, sea water is becoming more acidic

> The observed rate of global mean sea-level rise accelerated from 3.04 millimeters per year (mm/yr) during the period 1997–2006 to approximately 4mm/yr during the period 2007–2016. This is due to the increased rate of ocean warming and melting of the Greenland and West Antarctica ice sheets. There has been an overall increase of 26% in ocean acidity since the beginning of the industrial era.

Appears to correlate with the NASA data of 3.3 millimeters increase per year.
No not really. Again, they lose billions right now because it costs a lot to build out new buildings. Then as a building matures they recoup these costs through the memberships. The more mature offices are profitable. It just isn’t necessarily tech/VC level profits.
It is impressive how strongly held, yet also specific your beliefs are. Who told you this.
"At least one accident, dated 1960, was reported in the press when the plastic bung was removed and 133,000 steel ball bearings exited onto the aircraft hangar floor, leaving the bomb armed and vulnerable." Wow. Real Dr Strangelove stuff.
I think that is an interpretation of the graph showing sea level rise since 1994, which is on that page.
I really enjoy reading your pro-housing arguments. I'm stuck in a debate with a NIMBYist on Nextdoor, and would appreciate your perspective. Do you have an email address I can contact you at? This is in the South bay.
Worse than Chernobyl, not even close.
How to Detect Chef
It’s appropriate at a bar. It’s not appropriate at a professional conference or at work. Especially with the age / seniority difference, this is textbook sexual harassment.
In seeing all the criticism that software developers have been taking lately over supposed speech transgressions (e.g. Stallman, Torvalds, "Bro", "Weboob"), I can't help but wonder why technical debates have shifted into personal ones, what the proper alternative is to the now seemingly much dreaded meritocratic way of doing things, who truly profits from this change and in what way do they profit from it?

There's no doubt in my mind that harassment and sexual assault, as well as discrimination and sexism, really do happen to some individuals. But when you have narratives being twisted to fit a prescribed perspective, when words and talk about the semantics of those words as signifiers (such as in Stallman's case) are interpreted as defense for the object signified by those words, the line between the aggressor and the aggressee become blurred. That does a lot more harm to movements FOR victim and AGAINST discrimination, by generalizing the phenomenon to the point that it loses all relative value it might've had. If everyone's an aggressor, and every conversation is discriminatory in terms of potential interpretation, all men, women, non-binary, etc. are affected. It is debilitating to the highest degree, and no one should defend, let alone strive to create, such an environment.

If anything, when faced with such situations, we are not discriminatory enough. As Popper described with his famous paradox of tolerance, tolerance of intolerance presages the destruction of tolerance itself. He clarifies, saying: "I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise."[0]

I can only hope that people who are outraged by these aforementioned cases of verbal transgressions have become so because they've misinterpreted what thought was being communicated. Unfortunately, as they more often than not work in consulting or have some "acceptance" program to push towards companies and projects, I can't be certain that they are genuine in their offense.

[0] Karl Popper, Open Society and its Enemies, vol. 1, note 4 to chapter 7.
> how can you possibly have a meeting inside both people's 9-5 working hours?

Don't have 9-5 working hours? Having a meeting at 8 is okay, but that should mean people get to leave earlier as well.
I stumbled across a beautiful grove of these manzanitas once up by pinehurst where Alameda county meets Contra Costa. They are a beautiful species and do look rather alien compared to the rest of the flora around.
Did you somehow get banned from Amazon?

My Kindle died on me. All my books that were from Amazon are still available:

1. for download to the Kindle app on my computer

2. for download to the Kindle app on my phone

3. for download in a format I can read (and deDRM and convert) with Calibre

The ones that weren't from Amazon were on my computer before they were ever on the Kindle, so they're still there, along with the ones I backed up.
You would be a fool to hire this guy after this stunt.
Yeah. To me, hard real time is when you count cycle (or have a tool that does it for you), to guarantee that you make your timing requirements. We never did that.
Super Mario Land 2 – Memory Exploration [video]
He said for 'this mess', not for what the CEO did.
App is great but costs money. Screenshot all the quotes during the trial and get a $1.99 egg timer
Looking at the graph there it appears the slope from 2010 onwards is steeper than before 2010 but I'd have to look at the raw data to check.

Edit: It's clearer on the second graph below. From 1870 to present it looks very much like an exponential growth curve, particularly the last few decades.
Followr has now been fixed
> You can thank loose monetary policy

I'm not so sure. WeWork is the product of three capital sources.

One, Mortimer Zuckerman, who was "not just their landlords AND seed investor," but also "happened to own Fast Company and NY Post which were instrumental in propping up WeWork in the press before anybody knew who they were" [1].

Two, MBS, who backed the Vision Fund to the tune of $45 billion [2].

Three, Masa Son.

Mr. Zuckerman's investment was too small to be affected by monetary policy. And I doubt the Saudis invested in the Vision Fund because their bonds weren't yielding enough. The only monetary actor is Son, though that is more based on Japan than dollar dynamics.

WeWork's competition, on the other hand, is juiced by monetary policy in the form of construction loan and mortgage rates. But that doesn't create WeWork, just lots of commercial real estate.

[1] https://medium.com/@henry.hawksberry/is-we-work-a-fraud-5b78...

[2] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-saudi-pif-investment-fact...
This is the funniest post I've ever read on this website

Either it's entirely the placebo effect, or it somehow actually does something and you're cooking your brain to wage slave even harder
> This is a lesson we are fast learning about freedom as it promoted by the tech world. It is not about ensuring that everyone can express their views and feelings. Freedom, in this telling, is about exclusion. The freedom to drive others away. And, until recently, freedom from consequences.

Disagree with the author here. Freedom in the tech world and indeed in the 1st Amendment is absolutely about the right to express objectionable views. The problem was that historical cultural norms permitted misogynistic bigots to maintain positions of power - it was a lack of political coordination to root out these leaders. Now there is a political wave driving sexual equality. But just like we learned with racism after Obama’s election, these things don’t move in one direction, they are wars, Trump is still in the Whitehouse and his poll numbers aren’t too bad. So if you care about the long term improvement of sexual equality, best to follow a laser sharp political strategy and discern that a principle like freedom of speech brings allies to the cause, it helps far more than it harms.

Free speech means permitting people to say hurtful things. We should protect everyone’s opportunity to reveal who they are. The main focus should be on what we do with that information.
So, is there any convincing reason to think that any emissions targets will be met?
Does anyone buy the line in
the article about India? Surely they will become an emitter at least as significant as China.

Isn't our money better spent preparing for the inevitable effects of climate change?
TLDR:

I don't use coding exercises in any capacity to hire junior developers onto my remote team of freelancers.

--

When I hire Clojure juniors, I have a set of questions that I've put in the job posting that they will have answered prior to me speaking with them.

I still speak to the person if they completely ignore the request to answer the questions.

There are probably 20-30 questions, some are objective, others are subjective, and a lot of questions are meant to evoke somewhat passionate answers, or at the very least, allow someone to display their passion.

Some have to do with qualities I would expect a certain type of clojure developer to posses.

Others have to do with the shape of our system, such as specific questions about tools in our stack.

The last variety are questions to gauge where on the spectrum of learning someone is at in regards to specific software development topics and practices.

I never disqualify candidates who don't have much experience with our stack, all I need to see (in their github repo) is that they write Clojure competently, and I need to understand from speaking with them and reading their questions, that they are a competent and interested individual.

I give most people I speak with a fair shot with the intention of improving my team's on-boarding process, which hopefully improves with every successful new hire, in other words, they bring the core competency required to participate in our environment and we fill in the gaps with respect to our architecture, methodology, and our stack.
Hardly. There probably are but I don't know any. I've figured this out logically and empirically.

From the spiritual point of view (I follow Dzogchen), once you realize you are not your ego (which is a system of feelings, thoughts, perception etc.) but it is yours (a thing you own), learn to observe it from a distance and realize what you are (by turning your inner gaze back to the point where you observe the ego from) this will become obvious and all left to do is practice. Or the fivefold practice of Dawa Gyaltsen will give a clue.

Practically it's like learning to swim - the first time you are put in the water you don't know you can but as you persist in your intention and keep on trying the skill develops and grows into a whole new dimension of freedom.

From the scientific point of view all the feelings are chemical reactions involving substances like serotonin (produced from 5HTP/tryptophan), dopamine (produced from DOPA/tyrosine), norepinefrine, acetylcholine, GABA, glucose etc. with help of some other chemicals. E.g. it is not really hard to stop being angry at somebody when you realize the cause of your anger is merely a chemical imbalance rather than the person you are angry at. Even if he has actually done something wrong you don't have to actually be mad - you can act reasonably (even punish him or exclude him from your social circle if this seems rationally necessary) while maintaining great mood (which would be particularly easy if you were on xanax or something - just a proof it's all about chemistry) and maintaining great mood probably is what you actually want. As soon as you start thinking this way you just stop taking your emotions seriously (which doesn't mean you can't enjoy pleasant ones) and they (the unpleasant and impractical ones) fade away as you stop dedicating attention to them. The more you practice this the less of them even emerge.
Here's a good collection

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Box-drawing_character
Yes, but there's two of them.
There is clearly a market for WeWork... and many competitors.
WeWork is and will be a great company, no matter what.

WeWork main competitor is Regus, founded in 1989. Regus is now present worldwide with revenues of 2.535 billion GBP (2018). Their market cap is a mere 3.68 billion!

There are also tons of smaller companies in that sector which are not international (mostly 1/2 countries) with much lower valuations.

So, the business model is fine, the market fine, the room to expansion here (especially with growth of remote work). Just the previous valuation wasn't.
Ebay would refund the seller even if the fraudster shipped back just an empty box to the correct address. They don't give a single fuck.
There's at least one book that explores this. Life 3.0: Being Human in the Age of Artificial Intelligence https://g.co/kgs/xr1eHw
Is it unethical, though? The entire point of OSS is that you cannot revoke the license once granted. A hostile fork is the expected result of Chef's actions.

The zeroth freedom is the freedom to use the software for any purpose whatsoever. That inherently must include purposes which the author finds unethical, even abhorrent.
That used to be the difference...almost a decade ago. Verizon is killing it's remaining CDMA infrastructure by next year. The main difference now between carrier specific phones is their LTE bands as they all use different ones and for silly reasons phones sometimes will only support ones specific to the carrier.