skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I want to jump in and clarify something on point (4).

It's not my argument that it's hard to talk a good game about business and tech at the same time. Lots of people can do that.

Rather, when I wrote that, I was reacting to a long string of own-goals people were reporting about their consulting practices on HN. I saw people freaking out about scope changes, about advanced payment, about counting billable hours, about acceptance criteria, and about payment terms. I was reading people complaining about working conditions issues that are totally appropriate for full-timers to bring up, but not generally at-the-market issues for businesses relating to each other, which is what consultancies are.

Most people who write a lot of comments on HN are self-evidently equipped to represent themselves well to businesses, at least in writing. That's not a concern of mine.

Instead, I'm more interested in seeing people take full ownership of the services they want to be offering their clients. Companies hire consultants to solve problems. The more completely and decisively you can solve those problems, and the less drama you inject in solving them, the more valuable your consultancy is.

So, patterns I see among high-value consultancies --- not just the ones I've helped manage but also those run by friends and peers --- include not pushing back on scope changes, accepting industry norms on payments, not demanding up-front payment, not trying to bill for ticky-tacky stuff like individual phone calls, not being afraid to provide a reasonable estimate up front, not charging for proposals, and not pushing the (probably totally reasonable for graphic designers!) graphic design field's orthodoxy about spec work.

Not for nothing, but I see similar patterns among other professions; I get the same professional courtesies from my accountant, for instance, and from our legal (Grellas Shah, highly recommend). I've gotten similar courtesies from BigLaw firms as well, and it's no surprise: the invoices we generated selling Matasano would have paid for 10x as many random phone calls as we possibly could have generated.

The most common reaction to these observation comes from fledgeling consultancies that work with small customers on small projects. If that's where you have to be, I understand and I'm not trying to condescend. But if those are your clients and you expect to grow your business, one of two things is going to happen:

(1) You are going to stop serving clients that require you to bill hourly, account for phone calls, demand up-front payment, and charge for proposals.

(2) You are going to find a way to scale SMB clients so that you're delivering them mechanically and without a lot of interpersonal interaction, in the same manner as, say, the big PDF-to-HTML shops do.

In the meantime, do what you gotta do to keep afloat! That was the point of the original post I wrote there (I'm a bit mystified about why that post is the one everyone points to for my consulting advice; I've written what I think are more important things about consulting here). You start somewhere, and then you progress towards operating like a more mature, larger business.
The October 2019 Security Update Review
Divergent Living Relative of Homosapiens Involving Withheld Findings
Just a note, but differences like 'pee' vs 'micturate' are common in all European languages at least, even the romance languages. The more formal words are often almost identical, derived from a cleaner Latin with fewer phonetic transformations than the more vulgar words.
Oh please. The Russiagate theory about the 2016 election has been completely debunked. The largest PR campaign has really been the gaslighting of the American public over the past 3 years by the Democratic Party to distract from their utter corruption and failure, and the Deep State to keep their Forever Wars rolling along.

Regarding your theory about Putin, even if it were true, it would be magnitudes less than the amount of people killed by the US and its allies in the bullshit wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Also, you are no doubt ignorant of the fact that the US spawned and supported ISIS, while Russia was instrumental in actually defeating them in Syria. This is common knowledge in military circles but studiously ignored by the Corporate Media.

ps. Bravo on your projection. Everything you're crediting to Putin and Russia are things the USG has actively been doing for the last 50 years. No need to bet, it's in the public record.
Hitler implemented "National Socialism." Hitler may try to argue that it is 'national socialism', but all fascists will lie to your face if it can empower them.

>The term "National Socialism" arose out of attempts to create a nationalist redefinition of "socialism"

The Nazis got to define National Socialism as they liked, even if the meaning drifted slightly from what you could consider a national socialist ideology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism
Archive link to full article: http://archive.is/1szN3
>but will it be true 5 years from now?

Yes. Apple is never going to leave China. They've already expanded assembly to other countries like Brazil and India to get around protectionist barriers, but there's never going to be a time in the next 5 or 10 years where no assembly takes place in China. The scale Apple is operating at is just too big. And just like Brazil or India, China can implement its own protectionist barriers at any time so there'd still be a reason to do assembly locally.
Im wondering why there hasnt been more critical coverage. Has to be more impressive accomplishments in physics
There's nothing inherently offensive and disreputable in making deliberate political statements complete with props and all.

The rule as written very obviously (at least to me) does NOT prohibit making public political statements in support of particular political groups and processes, actively and instensively advocating for or against certain policies or parties, using props to do so, explicitly condemning policies of certain governments, being a politician or candidate or pundit opinion-maker yourself and expressing strong political agendas to others, etc. It does seem to cover certain forms of expressing these statements (e.g. profanity and insults would fall under the prohibiting language) but not the political opinion as such.

An explicit prohibition against "offending certain groups of the public" is inherently assumed to include demographic groups but exclude political opinions, governments and individual politicians; so shouting "Government of X is horrible and their leader Y is evil" does not violate such a rule in any way whaotsover; that's legitimate political opinion; it's unalienable right of everyone to believe and communicate such things if they want to. Criticizing and insulting policies and political organizations simply can't be offensive in the way that insulting individuals or groups of people can be; if someone says that a statement of "stand with Hong Kong" or "stand with united China" hurts their feelings, then that's probably their (valid) opinion but it doesn't make that statement offensive or insulting no mater if someone claims that, statements of such format simply aren't offensive no matter what political group they support. "Fight for faith, stand with ISIS" or "Fight for man-boy love rights, stand with pedophiles" are justifiably unpopular slogans which would/should raise some eyebrows but they aren't offensive or insulting.
China stops broadcasting NBA games
I think what I said should be equivalent to what you do. When I merge my feature back to origin/master I do `git merge --squash myFeatureBranch` which automatically rebases everything and keeps a clean history.

This is really the only command I do by hand because I can't find the equivalent (yet, probably haven't looked hard enough) in Fork.

edit: oh I think I misread what you said. When working on a feature branch I don't care too much about the branch history since I know it's eventually being squashed back into a single commit.
With a destination from the contacts list I get You've arrived at "Drive <doctor's name>'s office".
> So the hypothesis, that a wealthier China would be a more stable, more democratic China wasn't insane.

I think the jury is still out. China has a long way left to develop and a huge populace still toiling without the benefits of that wealth. And some of the ways the economic development has happened are IMO temporarily and not durable.

> There was legitimate hope it would think and plan for the long term. With a dictator, however, short-term political survival dominates all else. And so we get the absurdity of a billion peoples' productive power being channeled into stamping out Winnie the Pooh imagery.

In fairness, I'm not sure that's a huge fraction of the billion peoples' productive power. ;P
Since diversity is a strength, it would seem that the ideal situation globally is to have a diversity of economic, political and legal systems. If instead, these systems around the globe tend towards similarity and strong coupling, the result is likely to be fragility and instability. By having weakly coupled diverse systems with well defined interfaces, the overall global system becomes more robust and disturbances in one part are less likely to propagate to the rest of the globe. Current tensions seem to be due to too tight coupling and poorly defined protocols and interfaces.
Non-experts also do all of these, just badly.

Seriously, aren't we over this "winners do this" bullshit yet?
This is not one culture or part of the world vs another.

This is liberalism vs totalitarianism. Totalitarians are successfully using the tools of liberalism against itself. It's time that we in the free world wake up to what's happening and fight back.
They do. It is a nationalistic rhetoric, much like what we saw here as well. At the end of the day, the legitimacy comes from some kind of populist support. Very unfortunate turn of events.
I think you are forgetting the existence of partially sighted people. Most people who use screen readers can see. There wouldn't be anything odd or unexpected about such people being interested in paintings or other visual art forms. On top of that, many people who are fully blind were not blind from birth, and so are about as likely to be interested in visual arts as anyone else.
I know there are companies that try to tread lightly especially when they have sizable mainlander ranks and go to pains to try to not offend.

And we obviously don’t want to speak to the people at large, but I definitely think we should have no qualms about calling out behavior of the Chinese gov as we do the Russian gov.

It’s such a contrast for Russian expats and Chinese expats and how company wide comms go out asking people to be mindful and not offend (but never get comms about not offending Russkies). I think this speaks to the importance of where the money comes from and how sensitive they are to that.
The thing you're not getting is that removing an emoji at government direction for political reasons leaves the whole of society open to other things getting removed for similar reasons: such as books, movies, news reports, etc. That's nearly always oppressive.

Turning over files to the government can be a normal law enforcement thing, and many societies have figured out how to do that and preserve civil liberties. It can be non oppressive.
An excellent piece by the late Donald Keene shortly after Mishima's suicide. The two were good friends in spite of Keene being an American and Mishina being deeply skeptical of the changes America imposed on Japan after the war.

https://www.nytimes.com/1971/01/03/archives/mishima-mishima....
I'll also add (by typing) that having it running in the background brought my fully loaded brand new MacBook PRO 13 inch to a crawl.
probably because its "utility function" (if it has one to begin with) is not aligned with human utility. a major part of MIRI's research program is set out on the question of this "alignment problem".

Yudkowsky has an amazing talk on this issue. I don't recommend many talks but this one is very interesting and introductory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUjc1WuyPT8
You are confusing different classes of chemical contaminants. Rock salt which is spread on roads consists of a chemical subset of seasalt - which is completely safe to humans as evidenced by healthy coastal communities.

The contaminants discussed here are of an entirely different class, they are toxic at trace levels. Sea salt and rock salt are ubiquitous natural materials, if they were toxic at low levels plagues of disease would occur until animals evolved resistance to them.
The West used to value the collective, or community and society as we were more inclined to call it.

The neoliberal experiment that started with Reagan and Thatcher put paid to that, and it's become all about the individual. Even when it is clearly to the detriment of individuals.
Contamination concerns surrounding Air Force and other military sites span far beyond PFAS as well. Disused military sites fall under the purview of the Defense Environmental Recovery Program/Formerly Used Defense Sites (DERP FUDS, what an acronym) administered by the Corps of Engineers, which has a long list of sites (hundreds per state generally) and is not very transparent about the disposition of these sites, with the records usually being shipped to the district ACE headquarters from which they can be difficult to retrieve. The sheer number of sites is also a challenge to effective public oversight.

Active sites generally fall under the purview of an environmental permitting program, so there are dual problems that the level of rigor to which the operation is held varies by the permitting authority (state environment department or EPA depending) and that the military branches in general and it seems Air Force in particular have drug their feet and, in general, gotten away with the least effort possible to satisfy their permit obligations (which are virtually always negotiable with the permitting authority, a negotiating process in which the Air Force holds a large portion of the power).

Other common groundwater contamination concerns around Air Force installations include jet fuel (often leaked from underground tanks and piping and may have gone undetected for decades) and residues of high explosives resulting from munitions testing and disposal. Smaller groundwater plumes may result from photographic processing chemicals and solvents used in cleaning aircraft parts. Generally all of these will be grouped into one or more "operable units" or OUs for administrative purposes and a series of reports issued as the contamination is characterized and a remediation program is designed and implemented. Depending on the regulating agency, these reports may be more or less difficult to find. For DERP FUDS it usually requires a FOIA to the correct USACE HQ wih a lot of followup as they frankly don't seem to have their records in order internally and take a while to find them - the FOIA officers are generally helpful but will keep coming back to you needing more info/clarification as they try to track down the right OU and reports. Fortunately I have never had them ask for a fee, even when their "secure file transfer" solution was broken for months and they had to mail me burned CDs.

Permitting processes and the DERP program both require public information meetings and a (modest) public outreach program. If you live near a military site, pay attention to notices in the newspapers and posted around the community for these meetings, and contact the public information office of the relevant military branch to inquire. The public meetings often include a surprising amount of technical detail on the concern and remediation plans, and because they are also attended by permitting officials represent an opportunity to put some city council meeting-style public pressure on the process.
> an incidence in gaming garner more eye balls on the topic of Hong Kong politics than whole month combined

That's definitely not true. Hong Kong has been discussed a great deal here, and China even more. These are probably the most-discussed topics of the last month; if not, I can't think of what would be. Perhaps climate change.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
> If that's the framing you want to choose, then you have to accept the possibility that its a power struggle you may lose. The point of debating things is that the most justifiable side should win.

Is there actual evidence that it works this way? Because as far as I can tell, "debates" about anything important mostly just get both sides fired up and more convinced of their own views. And I know for a fact that there are some arguments that are bad, but do well in debates, and other arguments that are good, but don't convince people. I've self-censored and said things that I don't really believe for this reason.

> In a power struggle, the side that wins may or may not be the correct one. If you think your position is correct, you should prefer the debate to the power struggle.

Sure, but you don't have a choice. There's always going to be power struggles going on, and your only real choice is whether you participate. If one side is regimented and ready to grab for power whenever they can, and the other side is constantly debating whether it's right to even try, I'm pretty sure I know which side's going to win.

> It's only people that fear they may not be able to justify their view that prefer to struggle for power.

The most important views fundamentally cannot be justified, because they're about basic values. For instance, I believe that all lives have equal value. However, I've met people who think that American lives are more valuable than all others. I don't know of any way that I could "justify" my position to these people: it's an axiom in my system of morality. The best thing I can think of would be to try and get them to meet more non-Americans, or show them sad pictures of children starving in Africa, and hope that they change their mind.
The one with SuperDuperSpeed USB4 Gen 4x2 Type-C ports?
If Bronx High School of Science (8 graduates have Nobels---7 physics, 1 chemistry) were its own country and we dramatically overestimate the total number of students who have graduated by multiplying current student population (about 900) by (2019-1935) = 75600 alumni all-time total living and dead, we get one prize per ~10k people. More realistically it's about one prize per 5k graduates or maybe another factor of two better.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bronx_High_School_of_S...
> China took the first shots, and they took them a long time ago. For over a decade U.S. services companies have been unilaterally shut out of the China market, even as Chinese alternatives had full reign, running on servers built with U.S. components

But, the U.S. companies like this equation - don't they? It helps them generate more profit to their shareholders and give them access to that scale of manufacturing. This led to the growth of the US economy. Now, you have a new player in the game who doesn't like to play by the old player's rules and the old player doesn't like it.
china is doomed we are winnning
The Black Hat Conference this year pulled a talk given by Crown Sterling because it was, in the opinion of the people in attendance and security researchers, absolute psuedoscientific trash.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/8xw9kp/black-hat-talk-abo...

Don't let anyone convince you hackers are anti-deplatforming. They merely disagree on what behaviors or speech are worthy of having a platform.
You are right, it is nothing fancy indeed.

The "-c" is mainly intended for automation if needed.

Main motivation behind this project is that I am currently working with rather large secret trees and will have to move them around for upcoming refactors. I could also write scripts for that with the vault client of course .. but it felt to me easier and more flexible on the long-run to have a shell-like approach to work with.
In my case, the refactor will include a shift from KV1 to KV2, which is also covered by that tool.

Further, I saw this as an opportunity to do some coding :)
I'm pretty sure you can, but if you're creating a lot of the mat once they begin to require it.
But they don't own any factories, right? Wouldn't it destroy Foxconn and only defer revenue a bit for Apple?

Maybe a few people who just gotta have the newest, latest, and greatest gadget will switch to a Flagship android because they can't wait for the new iPhone. But most people are pretty loyal / trapped into their mobile ecosystem.

I doubt it would materially affect Apple's market share or their revenue long-term. Isn't the entire manufacturing cost of an iPhone $9? Even if it doubled, their profit on iPhones would only drop by like 5%...

I think their latest pricing experiments have shown that there really is a limit to how much people will pay for a new iPhone, and they've found it, so I don't think they could pass the price onto the consumer. But it's only $10 on a $900 phone...
When I moonlight, I charge what would amount to overtime pay, because to me its overtime.
You do realize that floating a family member's body down the Ganges is considered a sacred ritual and that what you just said has nothing to do with mass deaths due to negligence right?
If your trade partner isn’t practicing as much free trade as you are, but you are still making money on trade hand over fist, then it isn’t very much in your interest to fight what is still a golden goose to you.

The only reason this fight has come at all is because of a bunch of displaced factory workers (and areas that did manufacturing) that have been hurt by this trade, and their government had failed to redistribute any of the eggs from the golden goose to them.
Would you use the word democratic to describe North Korea, despite that being the name of the country?
> but will it be true 5 years from now?

It will most definitely be true 5 years from now. It may not be true 15 years from now if Apple start investing heavily elsewhere today.
If it isn't explicitly not protected though, there could still be a fun case to deal with.
not true, I have lots of experience in PHP and if I write code in go sure it will have more bugs than my PHP implementation. how familiar are you with your current stack matters a lot. Also, That does not mean you should use a runtime where 100 things can go wrong (talking about node).

if the goal is to maintain an application and catch issues at compile time. go with a better type system Haskell/Ocaml/Rust.

Another option would be to use generative testing where you have tight control over what gets in, for example, Clojure/Spec.
Dynamic Ad Insertion wreaks havoc with this. Podcast eps can have different lengths and segments can have different start times depending on the ad profile of the listener.

And that's just at a single point in time: It's not uncommon for episodes to be re-edited and re-uploaded, or ads to be changed up (with different lengths) over time.
When I applied to work there, I was making $21/hour, Canadian, for similar work. $25USD per hour works out to around $32CAD, so it was well worth it for me.