skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I think you are making a mistake in your prescription. From my perspective it is not the engineers that need to work closer with the designers, but rather the designers that need to work closer with the managers with engineer support. It's a critical mistake I see all over the place, and it's a rather silly one when you think about it. As you described, the boss can bring the whole thing into disharmony, so why, for better or worse, would you not want to bring that variable into the process loop as closely as possible. I get it, it's not something many want to do and some may even loathe their bosses mucking around and screwing things up, but reality is that if you don't adapt to the process it will guarantee to screw your process up; so just adapt to reality and not let the stubbornness sabotage things.
It’s pretty crazy that we’ve even gotten to the point where there is an FAQ about “hard forks” on the IRS website.

You have to give the US government a certain amount of kudos for how it’s handled cryptocurrency so far; it’s been far from perfect, but you can tell they are trying to be accommodating and employ common sense.
What do skateboarding and global health have in common?
>It's not a question of switching to Brazil. China was already buying from Brazil. But Brazil doesn't have the capacity to make up for a cut-off of American supplies.

This literally already happened as another poster said...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-05/china-ask...
If we can send people for generations in space, we believe we can live sustainably.

If we believe we can live sustainably, we should be able to do it here.

We aren't doing it here, suggesting we're dreaming if we think we can do it elsewhere. Even if we aren't, the best we to show we can do it is to live sustainably. We're not.

We could at least show we could live sustainably underwater or in Antarctica, but we can't, even with a world of resources and help, and they're easier than space.

It seems the best way to make other planets possible is to live here sustainably. I suggest we devote the resources we're using on those problems (space travel) on this problem (sustainability on Earth), since it will also help those problems, if they're possible.
> we truly deserve to go exctinct

I'm no climate change denier but last I checked no scientific bodies we're predicting that the human race would go extinct. Stating that seems kinda ironic given you seem to be attempting to take the high-road scientifically.
I believe it's also a play similar to Embrace Extend Extinguish:

- Embrace investment globally

- Extend markets and improve industries

- Exert political pressure in exchange for access to now-crucial markets/industries
You can disable the ads in the steam client by going into Setting > Interface > Uncheck "Notify me about additions or changes to my games, new releases, and upcoming releases."

https://i.imgur.com/Gh9V45t.png
I don't play modern video games, but I constantly see forum posts where gamers lament that other gamers are doing preorders for game X, because of some fault of the publisher. But these Lamentations are never heard by anyone but the minority that already cares about those things.

So the answer is there is nothing to bounce back from. A bunch of people making a stink about something on message boards is still going to only be a tiny fraction of the overall base. Most gamers just want to play fun games, and will pay their money unless there is direct evidence of the company doing something beyond the pale for all of society.

It's the same reason you don't see more bicycle riding vegans, even though ostensibly many people don't like to see animals mistreated and understand that global warming is happening.
How much management does a bare metal box need? Nothing more than what an ec2 instance would need.

There are colocation providers all over the world. Psychz.net is a great example. My assumption is a single box per region. There is no redundancy in your ec2 systems.

You should google the Amazon profitability team if you don't believe me.
You're of course entitled to your opinion on the HK protests, but I don't think that's what people are looking for. You're just one random person on the internet. What I think we're interested in is figuring out what public sentiment actually is, and what's causing it.

For example, is it that most Chinese people are genuinely, organically outraged? Or is it a small, vocal minority that is being amplified by state media? Or is it mainly groups like the 50 Cent Army manipulating public opinion? It's hard to say, and I don't think the Western media is equipped to answer that question.

As an example, there are reports that Chinese media outlets are dishonestly painting the HK protestors as largely a violent group that (among other things) are separatists. If people in China hear that, and believe that, I'd say outrage is completely understandable... but it's based on a false premise. But I don't -- and can't -- know what's actually happening over there, so it's just one explanation among many possibilities. How do we, as foreigners, get to the heart of the matter? Is it even possible?

To your note about the language barrier: I think about that a lot. I speak/understand a very tiny amount of Chinese, and can read basically none (something I'd like to improve at soon). I was watching a recording of a clip of a Chinese news broadcast, and of course there was a translator speaking over it in English. How do I know the English translation was actually what was said? Even if the translators were acting in good faith, how do I know that the translation accurately expresses the intent of the speaker? I don't, and recognize that there are limits to how much I can understand what's going on.

I think, also, for context, a lot of non-Chinese people naturally distrust China's government. Personally, I have trouble believing anything at face value that comes out of an authoritarian government, or the media apparatus that it controls. The US has many, many faults, but at least I can believe with reasonable certainty that the media outlets are saying things (whether right or wrong) because they want to say them, not because the government is forcing them to say things.
The holy grail of advertising has always been proving that it works.

Delivering one ad that results in a confirmed purchase is much more lucrative than multiple plain page views, or even clicks. The result is twofold:

1- trying to predict who's ready to purchase something, right now.

2- trying to prove someone that's seen an ad actually made a purchase.

This is why Gmail for free made sense from day one. What better way to verify a purchase that by having access to emailed receipts. This is also why Google's been buying credit card purchase histories from Visa/MasterCard/banks etc.

Separately, there's predicting one of the big life events: college, wedding, baby, home purchase. If I'm remembering correctly, getting a jump over competitors on one of these can be worth hundreds of dollars.

There's the story of Target using purchase behavior to try and predict pregnancy, so that they could send targeted / trackable coupons to the expectant mothers. They sent one such packet to a 16 year old girl, who's parents immediately threw a fit about how inappropriate it was, and how dare they accuse their innocent little girl of being promiscuous...

Turns out not only was she pregnant, but Target knew before even the girl realized it.

The kicker: this was circa 1996.

All of this to say, targeted ads might make sense, but proven effectiveness pays more. For that, trackings pretty much required.
Hubbits, not to be confused with hobbits.
The disabled toolbar is easier because it still gives context and confidence you are looking in the right place.

'This is what I want...hmm...how do I make it work?' is a far easier process than 'I can't find what I want...where on earth is it?..does it even exist?'
Thanks. "Multiple complaints from guests and verbal confrontations with others in attendance" makes it seem pretty defensible to me.
> The more I look through this ruling, the more it seems like it is only designed for people who hold their cryptocurrency at an exchange.

I think you're absolutely right. The guidance only makes sense through this lens. It's unfortunate that the IRS didn't base their reasoning on the technical characteristics of the underlying blockchains. There is a whole lot of ambiguity as a result.
Michio Kaku has long been my least favourite of the celebrity talking head scientists. And he has some good competition for that label. His pop-science books tend to read more like coming from a Hollywood screenwriter than a careful and thoughtful scientific mind.
While I agree on the promise of quantum computing, the way you phrased it is somewhat misleading (hides plenty of complications (even theoretical ones) under the rug). Moreover, even if we can simulate a theory efficiently, we can not use that simulation to learn the value of a (hyper)parameter, without being able to make an observation.

And this is the main problem: it is infeasible to make observations in the parameter regime of interest. The difficulty of simulating the theory is borderline inconsequential in this case.
untapt | Python Backend Engineer | on-site | Full-time | https://www.untapt.com | $110K – $140K + benefits + equity.

untapt is a machine learning company that specializes in HRTech. You’ll work alongside a team of passionate developers who are working to flip hiring on its head.

Our technology challenges are vast: on the surface, we're iterating upon a two-sided web application that is unlike anything engineers and hiring managers have ever seen. We're building a sophisticated, analytics-driven matching engine that uses structured and unstructured data to predict highly symbiotic working relationships. We use Python, Flask, MongoDB, Redis, Kubernetes, React and a healthy dose of Secret Sauce™ to make it all happen.

Together, we'll change how developers find work – forever.

Here’s how we’d ask you to apply: send your resume to joinus@untapt.com and tell us what you’ve enjoyed most about the backend projects you’ve worked on over the last 4 years.
We Prefer Coding Challenges
No communist regime is even remotely close to caring about pleasing anyone. Very much the opposite, they'll do literally anything to make you please them.
They don't make sense nor try to. Then make power grabbing (and preserving).
Atari VCS Lead Architect Quits, Claims Six Months of Design Work Went Unpaid
Which American tech has the most to lose? FB and Goog completely unaffected. Microsoft could take a hit but would be fine since they're ubiquitous. Apple? What's their hardware situation look like?
> just open any mainstream news website and read the comment section under an article related to climate change

Well there's your problem - comment sections on many "mainstream" sites are a dumpster fire. There was even a recent article (one every month or so) about how moderation across the internet sucks: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21143526
Yes, they are way more fragile that they make themselves appear to be.
Sometimes I do wish we could neatly separate people into groups of consequences based on their opinions - all the climate change deniers get to live in exactly the world that results from doing nothing. Political party A supporters get to live in a world governed by political party A and so on. I suspect it would rapidly result in a lot of people actually researching their political opinions properly.
Disagree - we hurt the sales of Battlefront 2.

And I think there are gamers, like me, who haven't paid money to Blizzard in a while because I don't subscribe to anything Blizzard, but I already own a bunch of games.

What should I do?
All that would achieve is the acceleration of moving away from Chinese supply chains.
The PM wasn't ignorant

I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt unless I have reason not to, but in this case, I did see some of the speeches he was giving at the time, like this one[1]. It was a textbook example of a politician repeatedly quoting the same obvious sound-bites and buzzwords ("leadership", "keep us safe", "rule of law", and so on) without really understanding the issue. Occasionally he seemed to get pushed off-script, like the section where someone asks him to explain what a backdoor actually is, and he is literally hand-waving rapidly as he delivers a superficial explanation that doesn't suggest any sort of real understanding.

I even think he was making a joke.

Again, if you've seen the footage of him making the infamous statement, he might be trying to make a joke, but it's more like he's trying to laugh off the nonsense he's saying as if that makes it OK.

They are just pointing and laughing and not making a coherent point.

When you're dealing with someone who is demonstrably unable to recognise the basic facts of a situation and make reasonable arguments, sometimes ridicule is all that is left. As I said, sometimes the best we can do is try to keep such profound ignorance away from any sort of power.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i326eNOa6Us
I remember cracking the password from a Windows system in high school. There was a centralized login mechanism using Novell but everything was cached locally. So you could boot a Linux CD and copy the password file to a memory stick, and crack at home. I think I used lophtcrack? The head admin account for the entire school district (basically root) had the password “north”. It took like a fraction of a second to crack. It was so simple that for weeks I didn’t even believe it to be true, and didn’t realize the name of the account was an admin.

I was expelled a few months later for all the fun I had after discovering this. Good times.
I am not quite sure just from cursory review, but I find that just ripping things out is rarely the answer to poor design. I get it, it's supposed to be a focus view, but dumbing down tools is not an alternative to good design.
2x m5d.4xlarge EC2 instances for 3 year no-upfront reserve pricing is $20,813.76 (You should really do that).

But what are you getting 2x m5d.4xlarge instances from the get go? Start with the smallest instance size your app will run on and then add them on one at a time? Need to run 10 servers in the day but only 2 at night? Then configure autoscaling to do that. What happens if you need to expand out into another part of the world? Okay, now you just copy your setup to another Region instead of trying to find another provider in another country.

What if your service becomes super popular (You got on the front page of HackerNews), with autoscaling, it just grows automatically. No scrambling to get more servers, it just scales.

Don't listen to the "Woe is me!" stories about using the Cloud and feel sorry for these companies. They designed poorly, wrote crappy quick code and paid a price for it.
This was pure crap written by someone that inadvertently illustrated just how dysfunctional GNU actually is. Childish prose, childish attitude. Time to move out of mom's basement.
Upvoted by me because that is a sensible answer.

However, I don't know of good answers to the issues that prevent me from updating.

For most of my work, Linux is used in VMs and remotely (Linux in a VM on a Macbook uses much less power than Linux running natively, and side-swiping between Linux and Mac is really great). But I don't use the Linux GUI much. My open windows are virtually all iTerm2 or Firefox, and almost everything that isn't a GUI is on a Linux command line somewhere.

So there isn't a strong imperative to update the host OS of my laptop.

However, what I lose from updating is significant. There are things that can't be done with much more recent MacOS, or which work significantly differently, or where the bugs have changed so introducing risks (SMBFS random file deletion, thanks Apple!). And Apple has a very annoying habit of making it next to impossible to build things for old devices on new Macs. (Unlike, say, Linux, where you can at least cross-compile or use chroot/containers to run old build systems.)

The real answer for the things I want to do is to buy a new machine and keep the old one around to support older devices that it is currently doing.

But I'm in the same dilemma as other people hoping for a great new Macbook Pro (after 2015) to come on the market at a sensible price some day. Besides, they have become very expensive, and my current one still works very well.

So in practice, I don't have much in the way of security risks (Firefox and Linux are updated after all), but iTerm2 is probably the only vulnerable tool I use daily on the Mac side which is exposed to data from the net.

And so it made sense to ask, just in case. I completely respect the author's reply.
Humans may not migrate to other planets but our nonbiological descendents might.
That is one issue, as the number of services needing a model increases, you end up repeating this.

It also becomes more complex as your domain grows and the complexity / number of events increases.

Finally it can introduce a high degree of coupling, which ironically is something event modeling hopes to decrease. In this case if you have 5 or 6 consumers all building their own read model, but relying on specific events, the consumers are more deeply coupled into the services that emit these events.

They now all need to be updated if something fundamental changes in the systems supplying events.

I'm our case we used two techniques to mitigate this:
- defined 'public' events with a clear api. These are the only events any external consumer should consume. Yes, it introduces some versioning ave migration issues, but also creates a clear and very helpful boundary.
- defined read model as it's own domain and gave it a service. This is not always usable, but in many cases the model clients need of the entire system is fairly standard. This way they can integrate with a more typical query to pull the model rather than building it from scratch
Keep in mind its Activision-Blizzard, not just Blizzard.

Even if you boycotted all Blizzard products, the call of duty series and candy crush would take the hit. Also, I don't think it would work period; if Blizzard made this a hill to die on, it's because the Chinese market must be growing and higher profit than the west.

The people who pay set the rules.
> A taxpayer
does not have receipt of cryptocurrency when the airdrop is recorded on the distributed
ledger if the taxpayer is not able to exercise dominion and control over the
cryptocurrency. For example, a taxpayer does not have dominion and control if the
address to which the cryptocurrency is airdropped is contained in a wallet managed
through a cryptocurrency exchange and the cryptocurrency exchange does not support
the newly-created cryptocurrency such that the airdropped cryptocurrency is not
immediately credited to the taxpayer’s account at the cryptocurrency exchange. If the
taxpayer later acquires the ability to transfer, sell, exchange, or otherwise dispose of the
cryptocurrency, the taxpayer is treated as receiving the cryptocurrency at that time.

So you would not owe tax until they supported it (if at some point they do). Whether it's theft isn't a matter for the tax agency.
How do you plan on manufacturing that ethanol?
Ever heard human flight was impossible?

Ever heard that faster than sound was impossible?

Ever heard splitting of atom was impossible?

I understand that I might sound dreamy but here is the thing it's far better to believe, try and fail than to never believe.
I see it the other way; it's telling that KSA didn't cut the oil off along with their other threats and actions because they realized it would only hurt them more than us. Just a pointless temper tantrum while they remain utterly dependent on foreign exports of their oil.
Thanks, I completely understand.
it would be the best thing for the US if China made it hard to obtain their supplies (wth the exception of anything China has an exclusive source of).

Look at oil. The US was the first country to pump oil at scale. but over time it invested in other countries to develop their oil fields (few countries have the capital to bootstrap their own fields) and extracted strong pricing concessions through joint ownership of the fields and the processing facilities (The Prize, Daniel Yergin).

Eventually, it was just cheaper to buy oil from other countries while sitting on our own reserves (which will be worth more in the future if supplies start to dwindle).

However, eventually the oil market got complicated with multiple new players and the US rediscovered how profitable oil exports could be. When we wanted to, we had the capital and the expertise and the will to exploit US oil again (I am explicitly leaving all environmental concerns, short and long, out of this argument, although they are important both for oil and chip production).

once the US was an oil exporter again it forced all other players to adjust their game. It gave the US a lot more global negotiating power, it gave US more domestic supplies, it provided lots of very high paying jobs to oil workers (again, ignoring environmental externalities here).

Let's say china makes it hard for people to buy chips made in china. And the US decides in response to take all the free capital and tax incentives it has and turn large swaths of unused land into fabs and manufactories for high tech equipment. Remember, like oil, chips are something the US invented and it has a very deep bench when it comes to fab tech.

And China is terrified of this. They know we intentionally outsourced fab production for environmental and cost reasons and they know we can bring it back. They are already seeing how some large consumer electronics companies can pick up major components of their production pipelines and move them to other countries.

personally I think it would probably be a net negative for the US because (like oil) fabs have massive environmental externalities and we happily exported those problems to other countries. but it's an entirely plausible scenario that would just take a bit of changes from the current situation.
The North Vietnamese lost actually; and had they not been under the Soviet nuclear umbrella, and recipient of billions in Soviet aid, they would have lost a lot quicker to US technological superiority. There were no US troops in South Vietnam when the North entered Saigon.

I dunno what you hope to achieve here; do you think any significant population of people think jets are no big deal?
> a super unpopular position at the time (1996); pretty much the only prominent person in agreement with him was Nobel Prize Winner Phil Warren Anderson, who disagrees with him in many other respects. Ultimately many other writers came out in agreement on this issue at least; Woit and Smolin most notably, though others agreed.

Ugh, almost everything about this narrative is wrong; see my other comment. Science writers didn't invent skepticism of string theory, that was in good supply among physicists even 50 years ago. You only think they did because, well, you rely on them to tell you what happened, and they puff up their own roles. They turn it into "me vs. the establishment" while cribbing off conversations that are already happening within the field.

For example, Glashow, one of the architects of the Standard Model, tried to bar string theorists from ever being hired at Harvard, but you never hear about that.
Can you relate your position back to the text of the ruling? Particularly where it references Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 431 (1955)?

The standard they are appearing to apply is "undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion".
All it takes to keep Google from spying (apart from not using any of its products directly and not having a Google account) is a well-targeted block list on your router and in your ad blocker. They'll probably still be able to glean some data about you but it will be sparse and more or less useless for ad targeting - or maybe it is useful in that it tells them that 'you' don't like nor look at ads?
Node v8.16.2 (LTS)