skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The parts of Google culture that were very unique are being slowly eroded.

Most of the outsiders have seen Google's practice as something that does not belong in a "mature" firm (the zombie corporations they were coming from).

People wanted to go to work for Google to change the world. Now they are joining because it is a comfortable company to work for.

As early employees stared leaving or becoming complacent, more bozos started to be hired and shifting the culture.

They have been wrecking Google's great culture a little bit at the time.
At the risk of sounding pedantic, is the term "ethical" sufficiently well-defined in this context to have a fruitful discussion?
Think of a curve as a railroad track, not the area that it encloses. A closed curve has no ends.

The disk that it encloses, indeed, has a boundary (the curve in question).
From protests to riots to lone wolf attacks. What next, Hong Kong?
The only thing I can think of is because certain issuers/networks treat Card Not Present transactions differently for chargeback disputes. For example, depending on the network, if you fail to collect CVV or zip code, you automatically lose second presentment rights. I don’t know how CNP vs CP charges are priced, but the mere presence of different fraud liability treatment leads me to believe there’s a fundamentally different lens applied to online transactions, and real life (less likely to be fraud?) transactions.

Just my guess
I wasn't aware of Zotfile. I'll take a look. Thanks. Hopefully it has some way to automatically associate with ~10,000 files...
Please don't start this flamewar for the hundredth, at least, time. It's predictable and predictably nasty, the two things we most need to avoid here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
A lot has changed in the US in a decade. Case in point: a person could make the above claim with a straight face now. ;)

Obergefell v. Hodges was only four years ago. American conservatives are still trying to reverse gay marriage.
Good for him for getting paid now. But that margin is too fat to go unchallenged. Market forced and competition will grind that 1% down quickly.
Got it. When I saw the squares it reminded me of magnetic core memory. I thought the squares were the punches but I can see it in this image[1].

[1] http://static.righto.com/images/ibm-360-tros/tros-diagram.jp...
The better question is would this case mean someone already has the copyright on push, pop, enqueue, dequeue? Someone originally came up with all those APIs, and they (or the people they were working for or otherwise sold it to) would would own any copyright.

(The answer is probably no, I'm sure a half decent lawyer would manage to distinguish that from this case since it is so simple).
Depends on the probability distribution of single Legos in your nocturnal environment.

On a more serious note, when a fire alarm has gone off in the middle of the night and I have to grab a sleeping child and get out of the building, then it's one less thing to worry about for sure
Ah, gotcha - so the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit* decided in favor of Oracle in this case. Thanks for taking the time to type that out, I've been living under a bit of a rock it seems!

*corrected from "second district court"
First. Thanks to HN for not demanding phone numbers: anonymity allows to say things that cannot be said.

Second. Many googlers read HN. In some sense, HN is the extension of the internal forums.

CNBC made a good summary and I can comment on each bullet point.

Larry and Brin probably stopped attending because nothing important is said on TGIFs. More people -> more leaks -> less interesting information -> less attendence. Nothing surprising here. Sundar's solution seems to be resorting to boring once a quarter all-hands about business strategy. I wonder what the attendance will be.

It's a hypocrisy to complain about troubles with trust and at the same time ban political or whatever discussions. Googlers are generally very smart folks and understand that whatever they say may be used against them in the future, when policies change once again. Today you post a memegen where you state that triangles are better than squares, tomorrow you get fired because squares have become the symbol of some protected class. You have to apply a form of forward self-censorship and be very careful about what you say to whom.

I don't think there is a tension between execs and workers, but only because the two classes live in different worlds.

Don't get me wrong. Google is still the best workplace with top notch pay, but as it's got big, it's also morphed into a typical big corporation with typical corporate politics.

Just my 2c.
"Prestige" and quality of a social network that you have no connections within, don't matter one iota. The product is the website and infrastructure of the network, married with the users and their connections within. See: Google Plus. They (stupidly or naively) thought that using the cachet of exclusivity and invite emails would work in its benefit just as it did with Gmail, fundamentally misunderstanding the nature of the product and the entire marketplace they were trying to succeed in.
"Euler-Poincaré Characteristic." I had noticed this pattern in shapes along the various dimensions when I was a kid but none of my math teachers knew what I was talking about. Never asked about it when I went to college, but I'm glad that there is a name for it.
Ebay doesn't have this problem and the solution is extremely obvious. Amazon has no third party seller rating. There is no way to confirm the trustworthiness of a third party seller. People cannot review sellers, they can only review products so sellers can easily get away with reputation loss without having to create new accounts by simply moving on to the next product because Amazon as a whole absorbs the reputation loss. I personally loathe buying on Amazon because of this.
GPS Spoofing in Shanghai
Same to you. It's nice to be able to hash it out, even if we fundamentally disagree.

To be clear, I never said, nor do I believe:
> "simple minded" people are biased by their 'emotion' but smart people are not
> smart people are better able to guard against their biases

Let's stick to the topic. You keep using words with varying meanings as if they are interchangeable. Also context matters when using words.

Someone laments people making PURELY emotional decisions that are clearly illogical and thus send people to prison. (emotional thinking = system 1)

This is a lack of critical thinking (system 2)

We all fail to use critical thinking (one part of system 2) sometimes. As any characteristic in any group of individuals, there is variation, and some will use critical thinking more frequently than others.

At a certain low threshold of critical thinking, they are called 'simple minded'.

You say 'we are all like that'.

I contend that yes, we all fail to think critically sometimes. But some individuals will do so infrequently/not at all, because they are simply unable to grasp concepts. So yes, everyone does it, but no, not to the same degree. Just like everyone lies, some people are liers.

Is critical thinking and IQ correlated one for one?
Absolutely not.

Do high IQ people use their IQ to justify non-critical thinking?
Yes, yes they do.

But here's the crux: Critical thinking requires the understanding of concepts. The definition of intelligence, quite literally, is the ability to understand concepts.

I really don't have any studies that can prove that low intelligence can understand concepts. As it would literally break the definition of the words we are talking about. That's why I don't like the interchanging of words. It makes for people talking past each other.

There are specific words being used, with specific meanings in a specific context.

Change them, and the whole thing changes. 'Rational', 'bias', etc... were all introduced by you. They are vaguely related to the topic at hand. I was bringing Kanemans work into the fray based on the system 1 and system 2 concepts he describes. Just as someone talking about a Pavlovian response might talking purely about concepts of conditioning without any intention to conjure things like his interest with 'biomarkers'.

I completely understand Kaneman's point. It's valid. Just as it is valid to show that we all lie. We all cheat. We are all hypocritical sometimes. We all would steal (situational ethics).

It's part of the good side of post modernism, showing universality. But I find some people get lost in post modernism and make it a religion. If you say 'someone is a lier' they will smugly say 'we all lie'. As if frequency and intensity were not at play.
I'm thinking of writing an extension that would go grab the first page of each link and tell me if they want me to pay. The extension would turn the link red if so. How consistently can I get this right though? I can't just go by domain name because sometimes I have free articles left, on New Yorker for example. I agree with you on Medium. I was more angry until I found out it is up to the individual authors to turn on the paywall for their article so they can get paid. 60 dollars a year for hit or miss medium content is a bit rich. They must think they are in the same league as NYT or WAPO
The badging for meals is to show to the IRS that it's not a taxable perk. AFAIK it's just something that happens in the US.
>the Supreme Court is not particularly fond of the 9th

Sorry but this is FUD you see going around. The most overturned court circuits are as follow.

6th Circuit - 87 percent;
11th Circuit - 85 percent;
9th Circuit - 79 percent;
3rd Circuit - 78 percent;

Furthermore the 9th Circuit does the most basis and almost all of their court cases are not taken up by the Supreme Court, that means less than 1% of Court Cases are overturned.

Source for numbers but other places have written about this.

https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/feb/10...
I enjoyed your video [0], also yeesh. 90 seconds in or so, "For the moment we'll leave the General Dynamics exhibit and come over here to an exhibit we have here; this is the electronics exhibit, whereby, as you see, they have a number of, uh, gadgets, I guess you might call them that... Or is that the wrong word?"

That young man who wants to be a lawyer was actually a lot better prepared for this interview than the guy with the microphone!
Feature, not a bug
Why the heck do people use those kinds banks over there? Seems to me it takes away all the usefulness of one. It's a money bucket where you put money in and take money out. As soon as one of those three aspects is not there, then what is the point?
How to survive 75 hours alone in the ocean
Even those are like 9 euros if you send over 1k.
> leaving the "quality" and discoverability of the legal content to be derived from the upvote/downvote system they first relied on.

Unfortunately this leads to meme cesspools lacking any major discussion. reddit's ease of discovery backfires here: it's difficult to keep a subreddit's content focused and meaningful if any random person who isn't invested in keeping quality content can wander in. Moderators, and their removal of "too shallow" content, dedicated days for memes or discussions, and creation of dedicated low-quality subreddits, are a necessary evil.
Ignorance is a given. The kids knew lots of specialized things, not a well-rounded education. History is important to not repeat the mistakes of the past. Math is important to develop critical thinking skills and a disciplined use of logic. Being educated in these areas offer an "indirect benefit to society", as kevin_thibedeau mentioned.

People, though they may be individually smart/educated in their own areas, are dumb in aggregate and in general. It's only by all sharing a holistic education that we can have an educated electorate. After all, in any given area of study, a group of people making decisions by vote is only as smart/educated as the average individual.
Some code is so mangled together that trying to start small is more of an investment than overhauling the whole thing altogether.
Where did I take any action to 'silence' you?

All I was suggesting was that to actively come into a discussion and say that what's being discussed is not worth discussing is, in my opinion, both unproductive & rude.

Would you do that at a party? Join a discussion and tell people that what they're discussing is not worthy of discussion? Or would you do what most people do and wander off to find a discussion that is more interesting to you.
Ummah: The Muslim Nation
Python is one of the (the?) big languages I still regret not playing with yet. PHP has served me well enough, and my brief but romantic foray into Ruby a few years back gave me some perspective and nostalgia.

I don’t have a lot of time for playing with things like this these days, plus I wonder if my window for it has closed anyway. I remember talking about my underwhelming reaction to reading The Catcher in Rye with a friend once. “You read it too late” was his straightforward response.

I wonder if Ruby is my romantic / nostalgic language and whether or not I should just leave it to that.
"The book" in this case starts with legal obligations under the Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment act, etc. A milquetoast 'well, I treat everyone equally' doesn't even come close.
Introduction to Confident Learning: Finding and Learning with Errors in Datasets
I'll admit that I'm not sure how the law operates here myself. But I worry that because fair use is an affirmative defense, your formulation opens the door to something like a platform vendor analog to SLAPP suits. That is: it seems like if I, as the legally anointed steward of a platform, believe that your leveraging of my API is in line with my business model, I can decide not to sue you. If you try to compete with me (even in a venue that isn't using said API), I can decide to sue you just to make you incur the cost of defense. The particular burden of platform fragmentation and how it interacts with trademark law is a pretty subjective thing, so I suppose Oracle ultimately gets to make a prospective competitor relitigate Apple v. Franklin and Sega v. Accolade and Oracle v. Google Every. Single. Goddamned. Time. They. Want.

No, sir, I don't like it.
> (It turns out that it's not possible to selectively repress emotions: "I've got to watch what I say about politics" subconsciously spills over into "I've got to watch what I say" which spills over into "I've got to watch what I say about anything new and controversial", and you lose the latter well before the former.)

This was the same logic that allowed talented men to turn their workplaces into a very unwelcoming place for women by allowing them to make sexual jokes, proposition their coworkers, and have business meetings in strip clubs. If you are going with the “take your whole self to work” spiel you can argue that sexuality is a bigger part of most people’s lives than politics. So if we can ask for co-workers to not discuss their latest bedroom exploits, surely we can ask for people to not talk about politics at work.
Is Stripe forced to do this because of their upstream provider ToS, Well's Fargo?
the redesigning of of our internal corporate website is just as dumb. I dont know what it is with this "web 3.0" design aspect but if something is stuttering with simple text input with 8 cores riding on 16 gb of ram, I am afraid to know what the future holds for web apps
10M Active WebSocket Connections on AWS AppSync
The value of a social network is exponentially related to the number of nodes and connections. By putting a paywall up it’s sharply limiting that.

What he’s trying to do is admirable but doesn’t make a lot of sense.
I think that you're making a bit of a leap here.
There are a large number of JVMs - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Java_virtual_machines.

Not all of which will be Oracle certified, I would argue that each and every one of them should be free to exist regardless of that fact, on the grounds of fair use.

The courts have never been black and white entities - and there has long existed the legal notions of best and reasonable efforts. Which I think should be the standard by which a competing implementations interoperability should be judged.

This also ties in to another part of another response that I had not addressed - the reasonable efforts standard would protect against being required to implement needlessly complex parts of API.
Good stuff.

The key to a solid claim, especially for something as bold as "fastest in the world", is a complete specification of the inputs to the benchmark.

You mention random ASCII bytes and "random UTF-8 bytes". The former is definitely an really important case but also the least interesting. I can write on a napkin a UTF-8-but-is-actually-ASCII decoder that approaches 256 bytes a cycle cached (with a fallback routine when the ASCII assumption fails).

So then what about the random UTF-8 bytes. What does it mean? Do you generate random bytes and then exclude invalid sequences? Do you generate a uniform random codepoint in the 21-bit codepoint space and then concert it to utf-8?

At a minimum it would good to see a benchmark with random distributions that approximate common languages.

The true fastest decoders on such realistic data will be adaptive and more complicated than yours.
They're very productive, but much of that productivity gets spent reinventing the same products and services over and over.
> it would impact every open source project that tried to interoperate with any company's services, for instance.

This is categorically untrue. The discussion is not about anything called "API" but only certain kinds of APIs (code APIs, as opposed to protocols like REST "APIs"), and even then there is fair use.
How much faster than a "naive" scalar implementation is this?
> Prof Hall says as a result, meetings can become "maligned somewhat unnecessarily". But he argues that negativity towards meetings can be because their real purposes are misunderstood... the real purpose of such meetings might be to assert the authority of an organisation, so that employees are reminded that they are part of it. Such meetings are not really about making any decisions, he says.

We're supposed to feel less negativity towards meetings once we realize that its a way for the organization to assert its power over us? Reading this article only made me feel more negativity toward meetings, not less. What kind of an egotistical blowhard would prefer wasting his team's time and productivity, just to assert his own power and feel better about himself
You might think you're making a distinction within your comparison, but you're not.

Blanket no-hire policies for felons are discriminatory because minorities are disproportionally and more harshly sentenced in the US. While you might feel justified in discriminating against a person with a felony record, you have a non-trivial probability of judging them on the racist workings of a corrupt and broken system that preys on vulnerable populations.

Fewer than 1% of cases in the US go to trial. Instead, people are forced to plead to charges instead of letting the evidence speak for itself. An innocent person who doesn't think they can afford to fight a felony charge in court might choose to take a prosecutor's plea deal to go to prison for a month instead of the mandatory minimum of 5 years. It's utterly barbaric.
If you mean “conflation of what customers want and what companies need” that is another way to express “customer focus”

If companies like Apple and Microsoft care about providing a great user experience, Google search is risky. I think users would prefer not to see ads when they search, or worry about Google harvesting their data. If this is so, it might be worth it to fund some sort of independent “search foundation.”

I reckon a simple text-only search engine – like Google before it jumped the shark – would actually be quite cheap to develop and operate.
It's only for IRS reporting purposes, nothing more.
Cropping ruined the "Sneed's Feed and Seed" joke.
Leaves out https://www.monicahq.com/
No, it is not. The FDA wanted it's use ruled "experimental" meaning it would need to go through more rigorous testing before being available.
“The question is whether or not you can determine the interconnectedness.” I’m not sure what you mean by this. The algorithm I'm describing doesn't require any data beyond what is already used by PageRank.

I have a feeling that you think the electrical potential must be defined by some ad-hoc method before applying an electrical algorithm, and this requires fancy techniques like cluster analysis and the like? This is not the case. Let me re-emphasize that you only need to specify the network of resistors (which is the link graph) and the source and sink, and then the potential is defined automatically in terms of those things (the same way as in physical circuits).
Pretty cool, though it seems there are many common progressions that it can't make, as it forces you to choose a single scale for everything (the block titled "mode" should really say "scale"). For example, minor progressions rarely stick to a single scale like this tool requires.

With that said, you can still make a wealth of cool progressions in a single scale, and the limitation is interesting to work with.
> if most people are searching for the truth wouldn't it be better to give them both sides of the issue and have them decide for themselves?

i think the wording of this is insufficiently nuanced. consider that many issues involve more than two clear dominant points of view, and that for many issues most people would not consider all points of view to be equally credible.

> Why is Google deciding why that specific Hillary query is taboo?

because, as another poster pointed out in another subthread, any search engine that is usable (at the level of time and technical skill that most people have) will necessarily have to make essentially editorial judgements. after almost a lifetime of being the sort of nerd that likes to make lists, categorize things, geek out over philosophical classifications, etc, and after a few years of working in the library world, i'm convinced that coming up with any system of abstraction or classification necessarily implies making editorial judgements and value judgements. i think objectivity is a great and important thing to strive for (in reporting and in information classification), but i think achieving it perfectly is definitely not possible, especially on divisive issues, and especially where lots of people disagree (or claim to disagree) on the basic facts.

> And who gave them that right?

i don't know about right, but effectively they have the ability because: 1) they built a really good search engine, 2) they built a really successful ad business on top of that to monetize it, 3) through ignorance and laziness we let them hoover up our data and use it to greatly improve their ad business, which let them provide us even more free services that everyone got hooked on, 4) everyone seems too apathetic to make the effort to move away and no one seems interested in competing with them as a search or email provider for most people. and here we are.
How about similarities of C++ and Java ? Who copies whom ?

int, float, char key words ?
if - then - else, while loop, for loop,
curly braces { }
comments // and /*
main() method ?
socket API : socket, connect, listen, accept ?
and So many keywords similar to C++ ? (break, continue, char, double, new, public, private, return, static etc.)

Java benefitted from Collective knowledge of Computer Science and design patterns that were invented outside of Sun microsystems.

The JVM is written in C++ ?
Can we cay JVM APIs are wrappers around C++ API ?
Do they pay Bjarne Stroustrop ?
A survey in the last year or two of Silicon Valley execs found them to be very left in just about every category except for financial regulation and taxation.