skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> First the graph starts at 310 and focuses on 310 to 360 on the y-axis, so that the meagre 330 (1979) to 355 (today) change (despite productivity/GDP etc soaring in between years) to seem huge.

Okay sure, we're now arguing something completely different: whether or not the inflation-adjusted increase in median income is "meagre". Keeping in mind that, in real-terms, we saw a 12% increase in the real wage since 1981 (6% increase since 1979, following a plunge between 1979-1981), check out [1] and scroll down to Table A-7 (it's an Excel file). It's the real earnings data (in 2018 dollars), by gender, from 1960 to 2018 (though it's kind of spotty before 1967). What sticks out:

* For men (looking at Total Workers), real earnings are currently around 10% higher than they were in the 70s (moving from low-$40K's to recently just past mid-$40K's, with some peaks and valleys along the way). Doesn't sound like much, but...

* For women, earnings have roughly doubled in that timespan

* The number of men in the workforce has increased by almost 50%

* The number of women in the workforce has increased by almost 100%

From a certain perspective, it's kind of amazing that real earnings haven't gone down significantly. The share of people eating from the economic pie has dramatically increased, and that too, equitably across the genders.

And none of this takes into account that while the real median income has increased a modest amount, the composition of the distribution is constantly in flux. That is to say, a given individual does not remain in the median for their lifetime, on average (THAT would be meagre). Looking at IRS tax filing since 1968, ~70% of Americans spent at least 1 year in the top 20 percent of the income distribution [2][3]. So while the shape of the distribution looks similar over time, the composition of it changes dramatically.

[1] https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2019/demo/p60-26...

[2] https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/...

[3] https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
Thanks for digging up those links, I'll have to read those articles later!

The top comment on that third article about the brewery explosion in Vancouver could just as easily be about Denver - the story is nearly the same. As I understand it here in Denver, a change of law make it much easier for breweries to operate tasting rooms which can be quite profitable and spurred massive growth.
Huh, I thought I remembered something about Microsoft buying HERE. Glad to hear that's not the case. I did also completely forget about TomTom - last time I used their stuff was on a Palm Tungsten T3... Amazing that they are still around!
People agreeing with or rationalizing Google's response are not held in high regard on this thread.
And your supervisor knew of your intent to deceive the company when they made the approval? And if so, why would they make the approval unless they too wanted to be fired?

Sorry to be pedantic about a hypothetical, but I think it's necessary to consider the specifics of the actual case. Assuming this process involves something akin to a codebase commit, where the contents of the approved change can be clearly seen by the approvers, it raises the question of what sanctions her colleagues faced if Spiers' violation was so severe as to result in near immediate termination.

(because obviously, in your hypothetical situation, your supervisor would be fired if they knowingly approved a deceptive work expense)
How to build a “personal brand” in tech
I love unions but what she did was kinda crazy don’t you think?
I don't know much containerization outside of docker, but you can definitely apt-get some dependencies even inside docker containers.
Launch HN: Get rid of distractions and focus on tasks that matter
People throwing up CDNs and dumb bandwith blasting often being easier?
It is a sand castle on a private beach owned by you.

Have you ever posted a link to your site anywhere? Imagine you sent me a post card saying "Come to my beach to look at my cool sandcastle" and then when I got there the sandcastle was actually a robot that stole my credit card.

You could say that it wasn't your fault - somebody broke into your private beach and replaced the sandcastle.

But I would probably still blame you for not securing the area and double-checking the contents before inviting people. Even if I didn't blame you, I probably wouldn't respond to another invitation.
I applaud your willingness to manage up as well as down. I can't tell you how rare it is for a middle manager to trust the engineers in their charge to make these types of decision. At most places, where bastardized "Agile" has taken root, if any change can't be directly tied to a feature then it's not happening.
I'm a strong advocate for improving access to experimental cancer therapies, particularly because a drug I got access to pre-approval may have saved my life. Cancer patients should have easier access to novel therapies, and novel therapies should be easier to bring to market. There's a tradeoff between ensuring patient safety on one hand and giving patients access the treatments on the other, and I don't think we're at the right point on that spectrum.

On the other hand, I don't particularly trust China to land at my preferred point on that spectrum given a penchant for questionable medical ethics. Ultimately, though, US patients may benefit from Chinese aggressiveness.
Could also be because of its density and GDP. Are there “cheap” alpha cities?

https://financesonline.com/10-wealthiest-cities-in-the-world...
I'm glad not to be working with people like this. I think I really don't want to be working with people who want to push their pet topic on me via a security tool I consented to have installed on my work machine that's supposed to be helpful to me.

It would feel like a violation. Not "siding with Google" here. It just definitely would feel like a violation of my trust in the platform engineering team. At that point, I want them to promise not to do it in future, or get their software off my machine. And to be honest, relations are going to be strained between us anyway. I'm not going to be thrilled about any further software.

I don't even want reciprocal "I can push to you" powers. And I have no problem discussing these things where we agreed to discuss them.

But letting you install software on my machine comes with an obligation - you don't get to use that as a backdoor soapbox. Feels so very icky.

Like if a friend told me she would like to stay over and I gave her a key and she decided to plaster my home with posters. It doesn't matter if the posters are against the freaking Holocaust. I'm not pro-Holocaust and I'd want the friend to leave. Pronto.
If you don't require free will to be supernatural.
> Or would she have received a slap on the wrist for that.

Or would she have received a pat on the back, given that she went through the Standard Procedure for adding a feature to the browser plug-in?
She went through the corporate approved process with her changes. Her only mistake here is being pro union while Google is decidedly anti-union and pro-worker-abuse.
Yes, I agree with the outcome of the article.

The sad thing is that anyone could ever imagine ticketing(monetary fines) as a good idea to control homelessness.

That's kicking someone when they're already down. Very sad.
Q : Does the extra output (value) also translate into shared monetary benefits for workers and employers?
Ransomware gangs now outing victim businesses that don't pay
Focus! Get MCAS squared away and get the plane back in the air. Reading some of these comments here makes me glad that none of us are in charge at Boeing. The comments are unbelievably naive or have huge gaps in business logic or lack technical rigor.
When Should I Use Logarithmic Scales in My Charts and Graphs? (2012)
Unionizing is inherently political. https://jacobinmag.com/2018/07/unions-collective-bargaining-...
Should have been an AMP page.
Its basic physics. We have more heat trapping gasses literally all around us, in our very air. This will cause less snow and ice cover, meaning less reflectivity, meaning more warming where there used to be ice.

The polar regions will be decimated even if we manage to save ourselves.
Created a system that took report requests from a mainframe and ran then on a PC version of the system (saving the company more than double my salary every year). When the IT application support was outsourced (big 3 letter mainframe and PC computer company). The contracted cost per year to support the system that I wrote and up till then was still maintaining was 5 times my annual salary - companies have their own weird logic.
The article mentions that the security engineer in this story is 21 years old.
>Did people have to say "the third hour, old-style" or "the third hour according to the sundials" ("hora tertia secundum solarium"?) to make it clear what they meant?

As opposed to what?
> The biggest problem is a political one: You can't fight unemployment and inequality and try to reduce emissions.

Why do you believe this is true? It seems to me like many efforts to reduce emissions are also likely to reduce inequality, some also increase employment. For instance:

* Make public transport free and increased capacity, good on all three counts

* CO2 tax on big emitters will reduce profits of these companies, which are usually high margin industries with few unskilled/low-pay workers

* Higher taxes on air travel affect poor people less than rich people

* Current trends point towards rich countries committing to subsidise emissions reductions in poor countries
One example is https://www.climeworks.com/, others are e.g. the production of synthetic fuels by using ambient CO2 to produce CO2-neutral enegery.
I just had a funny thought. I don't know if it makes any sense, but it's funny to think about it. This is all made with my tongue firmly in my cheek, I don't know nearly enough about the topic to have any sort of confidence on what follows, so hold your downvotes :-)

Let's assume MWI is correct. This means that, as far as I understand, the Schrodinger equation imposes that for each quantum event there is a forking in two worlds: one per possible state (cat alive/dead). The implication is that there are (infinitely) many world branches that go from the beginning to the end of time. Since there is no collapse, each of these branches must be superdeterministic by definition: that's how we picked the branch, we identified a sequence of forks in the Schrodinger equation by picking the result.

"I" can live only in one of these branches: there are infinitely many "I"s, but the one I am in right now is one of them. I'll be in my branch until I die (many other "I"s will branch off me). Since every "I" lives on a branch, every "I" experiences the universe as superdeterministic. Thus, if we assume MWI is correct, the result for any possible "I" is indistinguishable from superdeterminism.

It gets funnier. If what I said it is true, MWI and superdeterminism are indistinguishable. However, one presupposes the creation of branches, while the other does not. Thus one is more parsimonious than the other, and should be preferred. Or, in other worlds, by assuming MWI is true, we prove that it is false and that superdeterminism is true.
IBM tailors Swift relationship after 'review of open source priorities'
I love that a site full of engineers is pretending that getting a pull request approved by colleagues is the same thing as getting management's approval for a new, most likely controversial feature. Google is clearly trying to squash union organizing at the company but let's not pretend this employee was correct in her actions. Google being evil and this employee being in the wrong are not mutually exclusive.
I enjoy n-gate but they are completely wrong on HTTPS.

That part about the web ad industry is entirely correct.
I guess a submission won't gain traction if you don't mention "AlphaZero" in the title:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21684118
>Ideally, he explains, electronics could be easily broken apart and recycled.

this should be addressed with regulations. it is obvious regulating downstream is not effective
Wait a second, are you saying the browser popup when you visit that specific page is required by law...

... or are you saying the content of the message in the popup is one Google has to make available in some form.

Because I'm fairly certain it's the latter, but this feels like an attempt to obfuscate the real issue with tricky language.
If you hijack the DNS request and respond with the IP of a different server, that server will not have a valid certificate for the domain in question. Why are any extra features required?
Have you tried google? This is a very basic fact about hybrid seeds.
People can disagree with you in good faith without being shills.

I am totally against people pushing their political messages on me while at work, and dislike working with the sort of person depicted in this article. I think they're bad for morale and a distraction from the business.

You can quite easily convince yourself by reading through my comment history that I'm not part of any PR firm, just a guy who wastes too much time commenting on HN.
tailors Swift lol
Windows 7 Extended Security Updates (ESU) Program, Price and Source for SMEs
Most Discussed, Shared Scientific Research of 2019: Altmetric Top 100 Released
Yep. I'd use CGI.
That just means the code was made to quality standards, not that the she had authority to make that kind of feature modification without approval. In a less technical analogy, just because you have a right to put up flyers doesn't mean you have the right to use the company paper and printers to make them.
You’re absolutely right. I can’t believe I forgot to list subsidized time and The Great Concavity (or Convexity, depending on whether the speaker is American or Canadian)! Thanks for the chuckle on my bus ride to work :)
I conceded that with "UTF-16 may not be great". I'm responding to the idea that UTF-8 is such a good solution to the problem that everyone should just use UTF-8. It isn't.
Websites that Kenyans most visited
So you want to keep running Windows 7? Good luck with that, small businesses
NNTP (newsgroups) and SMTP (email) both are federated systems. Long before domain names were convenience identifiers for just websites, you would be part of an organizational domain, be it your company, your university or your local ISP (before the advent of large national consumer providers). Those were much more than just a pipe to the larger internet, they would run applications which you would use, and which federated to other organizations.
Why not look at the User-Agent header and 301 to https if you don't see IE6?
Because it's hard and a pain.

Sure, depending on your setup it's easy, but for a lot of setups it isn't. Instead of trying to say HTTPS is easy and shame everybody who isn't doing it more efforts should be diverted into creating an actual fully encrypted network that doesn't need CAs.
Satellite uncovers Ohio gas well blowout's massive methane leak
Can you use old crypto for IE6 using some kind of agent detection while using new crypto for modern browsers? I thought Cloudflare does something like that. But there's a danger of MITM downgrade attack with this approach...
> At least the first two of them are type wrappers for strings - opaque to the type checker, but transparent to the runtime. Rust and Haskell have wrappers like this. Typescript does not.

You are right that TypeScript aliases don't work like Haskell ones (which are considered different, and type checked). In TypeScript you can use "branded types" to work around the more loose structural typing:

type Firstname = string & { readonly brand?: unique symbol }

https://stackoverflow.com/a/51578232
You can do all the things you want that are against the company, but it doesn't mean you have a right to continue to work there...
I recently changed jobs to increase my compensation, but I'm not entirely satisfied with the total package (compensation + work itself + people surrounding it).

I generally don't consider myself great at anything, but people around me seem to value my skills and it appears I could be compensated even better, which is the main driving force behind those feelings.

It's still worth it for me however because I can go fully remote on this job and the freedom is very, well, freeing. From my experience, getting a remote job with great compensation solving interesting problems is probably not going to happen for me unless I grind hard searching and interviewing for months on end.
Sure, but FICA is an income tax.
I'm starting to assume the two others are the two peer reviewers that approved the change.
If the headline were accurate, it would be such an obvious own-goal on the part of Google HR, it beggars belief.

I'm not sure about that. Outrage quickly passes and is forgotten.
What Would Happen If the ACA Went Away?
I think the article is saying castling makes for intrinsically more predictable patterns.

This makes sense. It’s such a good idea to castle, players pretty much always do. That should indicate it is cutting off lots of uncontrolled variations.

Moving the king to a safe place is going to make threats have a narrower set of possibilities.

I see no reason, in principle, why such a rule change shouldn’t have a dramatic effect on the number of feasible strategies.
It's an odd world we live in where factual information about legal rights is dismissed as a "political statement".

As others have said, if she'd abused her access to insert, say, a pithy pop-up about recycling on Earth Day, she would have received a slap on the wrist at the very worst. This isn't about changing the code without authorization. This is about a message Google doesn't want employees to hear.
> There's a sort of assumed good-faith for this process.

I don't understand why two people sign off changes if they assume the person making the changes isn't going to make errors or be "malicious". And I'm not sure why two people sign off changes instead of just one. There's a well understood problem when you have more than one person inspecting product - they both assume the other person is competent and will catch anything they've missed, and they each do a lighter inspection.
My understanding is that the if-anything-heavier-unionized EU isn't experiencing the same rapid growth in (especially public) construction costs as the US has been for some time—still faster than inflation, but lower than would be explained by just PPP adjustments or COL vs. the US. Unions may not be helping but there's something else causing runaway cost growth in US public sector construction, in particular.
That's awesome! I've always been annoyed that there isn't a built-in `ls` like feature, but this is a really clean solution.
But this hinges on there being a computable best opening, which there isn't for standard chess and there won't be for most(all?) starting positions in 960 (chess isn't a solved game). It's also not just an enum of [starting position, move number, chess move], there's also "why is this move strong in this position" which isn't something scrabble players have an equivalent of with just memorising lists of words.

I personally can't imagine any of the current top chess players memorising hundreds of opening lines for all 960 starting positions and then being able to remember them over the board. Only a few players have a mastery of current known chess theory that's just one starting position. I am happy to be proven wrong though when some new chess savant presents themselves.
What actually happens when you try to force HTTPS over the internet: you centralize it, you make it harder for the small player, hobbyist, personal homepage guy, and make it easier for the big corporation.
Tractionless Motion Is Possible
Do you only know copy and paste the same comment?
That isn't "not being yourself" unless you refrain from discussing those topics even when it might be called for. In my roughly two decades of experience working in academe, I have not suffered negative consequences for speaking unpopular opinions when they are relevant, nor have I ever seen someone suffer the same.

But, if in every meeting I attended I went on a rant about how 4-year colleges inflate student debt for marginal gain and future earning potential (yes, the issue is more complex than that) then I would be labelled some flavor of asshole, unprofessional, etc.

However, consider the context of admissions standards and policy for the institution. It would not be inappropriate to discuss aspects of that idea. How some segment of our population may not be good fits for the institution or 4 year college in general, that they would be better served by some other path of advanced education and job training, and how it is part of our job to set students on a good path rather than chase tuition dollars that put the student in debt for no likely tangible benefit. That would be appropriate to do, and in fact I do this on a somewhat regular basis, backed up by rigorous data analysis (my own area of work) from both my own institution and national data, when we are setting enrollment goals and other related benchmarks.

It's also been perfectly fine for me to discuss other controversial/unpopular opinions with colleagues outside of meetings during non-work related breaks or side conversations so long as I do so respectfully. Roughly two decades of steady career advancement would indicate that none of this has hurt me professionally: I have literally never failed to be awarded a promotion I was seeking, and quite contrary to negative consequences I have developed a reputation of speaking honest, unvarnished opinion backed by solid evidence.
The propositions themselves are not inaccessible, but there is no way to automate the process of testing their truthiness in a way that always works. That is the usual menaning of undecidability.
There is definitely a performance ceiling if you use the RDMBS as your event store. I used to worry about that. Now that I've got a few years working at a very successful high frequency trading firm that did message queues in an RDBMS behind me, I don't worry about it so much anymore.

They didn't use it for everything; there was also a blindingly efficient homegrown messaging system for the stuff that needed to be really fast. But that was for fairly well-defined use cases. (Latency and concurrency were the key limiting factors.) By default, everything went into the RDBMS-based system. It was inherently more robust, it replaced a whole quagmire of design questions you have to make when using other messaging systems with ACID guarantees, and it made it a lot quicker & easier to do post-mortem analysis of any surprising things that happened in production.
What if the message was: "Make America Great Again".

What if the message was: "H1B - go back to your country".

would it still feel ok to you?

etc

it is grossly unprofessional to insert unrelated messaging and hijack a tool to push your agenda.

"Going through standard protocols" in this case meant two other people approved the change - those two people also show serious unprofessionalism and bear responsibility as well - it is not an excuse.

Edit:

I have now also read the author's take on it.

https://medium.com/@ksspiers/google-fires-another-worker-for...

I do feel that the way Google went about it was heavy-handed and reflects badly on Google as well.
Those institutions are not the ones they were 10-20 years ago. And with less and less revenue streams they have resorted to clickbait like the rest.

I suggest you wake up to the reality of modern 'journalism'.

WaPo just recently messed up completely with the death of Baghdadi (the isis leader). Titling the article about his assassination as "Austere religious scholar dies at 48"

They had to change it 3 more times till they actually mentioned that he was assassinated. And that was just a mistake.