skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I highly doubt it would be a vacation bundle. Younger people who will be car buyers in the future aren't traveling via tour companies, they are buying low cost tickets and airbnb/booking aparts. Their lifestyle won't change that much soon. Bundling heavily overprised comfortable hotels or cruises won't help with advertising much.

Personally I think that good potential may be in renting bundles, or more general transportation bundles - for example a package which costs as much a as a new car which provides for example leased car for X days or kilometers per year, in any city, possibly in multiple countries, plus maybe some airline miles, car rental things etc. Included with all car service, maybe fuel/charging, tow services, etc. Basically car-as-a-service, for people who need good personal (this is a key, as opposed to public options) transport often enough but not every work day. But all this is just a hypothesis.
I have the feeling that "Full stack adaptive delivery" and its ilk are aimed at VCs or BigCorp sourcing managers instead of anyone that would actually use the product. The sad thing is that they seem to be so mutually exclusive nowadays.
Not everyone can afford a car. If you want fewer people to use public transit, pay your low earning employees more so they can buy a car.
sounds fun, but what was the ultimate purpose with MPTCP in that case?
I was one of the few thousands who starred that issue and had some 36 emails over the last 20 hours. It's been a curious nugget of the social internet.
Why would you build a completely separate lab in Phoenix?
> "too much upfront planning"

Maybe bad assumptions, or a general unwillingness to validate assumptions?

(IE, "Too much planning," not enough iteration / stakeholder feedback.)
That seems like a pretty major issue. No wonder it hasn't gone forward. Are there any alternatives proposed?
Aye, that's the point. And also why HP and Haier & KKR do sketchy things -- it's under someone else's brand, so they can do sketchy, dollar-grabbing stuff and not have to worry about the brand blowback.

Case in point, the current top comment is how they're never going to buy a GE fridge again -- even though it's not GE. Haier's gettin that money and GE is eating that bad voodoo.
What do you use for per customer keys?
Buffett, on execution independence on the downside

> when a management with reputation for brilliance gets hooked up with a business with a reputation for bad economics, it's the reputation of the business that remains intact.

JDR, on execution independence on the upside

> the best business in the world is a well run oil company. The second best business in the world is a badly run oil company.
What is the point of your comment? Not every comment to an article will pertain directly.
The 3rd party sites I've used don't ask for any identifying information though (unless you want to pay for paid features), it wouldn't surprise me if there were simply downloaded freeware that you could use to do it offline on a virtual machine if you even wanted.

A quick Google query leads me to this

>I recently wrote a small tool, Snappy, that can help you browse and interpret your raw data. Written in JavaScript, all processing is done on your browser, without transmitting sensitive data to any server. That also enables the tool to be used offline

https://www.reddit.com/r/23andme/comments/6troyj/wrote_a_new...

So it does appear there are some sort of offline solutions for further exploring your raw data.
Some great advice here, thanks for posting it.

Regarding this:

> ads don't dump to the top of your funnel they dump to landing pages designed to convert that demographic.

What do you mean exactly? Isn't a landing page the top of the funnel by definition?
Was the URL changed? I see nothing about $700B in the militarytimes article.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but that opinion carries less weight if they haven't lived the experience. I don't think that is unfair or controversial.

What you are in essence arguing for is free marketism. Unfortunately we are all painfully aware of the myrad of ways free markets fail on things which are not directly incentivised towards. The environment, safety and protection of minorities are all things which need special protection.
Assessing the Type Annotation Burden (2018) [pdf]
Contrast ratios likely play into this as well. I ran across some research a while ago that found that a contrast ratio of about 8:1 is ideal for readability. E-ink is pretty close to that optimum (usually around 10-15:1 these days). Whereas for conventional screens contrast ratios keep being pushed higher and higher (1000:1 is pretty typical). While this is great for video, it makes sense that at some point it becomes tiring for the eye when viewing black text on a white background (imagine trying to focus on an object superimposed against the sky on a blindingly bright summer day).
Linux would probably never had taken off if Microsoft had taken proper care of the POSIX personality on Windows NT.

As proven by Mac OS X adoption by GNU/Linux refugees, at the end of the day what a large majority cares about is a POSIX shell and related POSIX C APIs.

Three decades later, it is easier to just provide WSL environment than POSIX source code compatibility, and WSL2 distribution is the one taking the desktops.
Full body teleportation system – Google Patents
Federal health workers are civil servants. The restrictions on their rights are of an employer-employee variety, or of a contractural variety. Nobody put a gun to their head and told them to enter the civil service, and they can choose to leave it.

Again, go read the Bill of Rights. They are restrictions on the national government’s ability to legislate or take certain actions against you, not a grant of rights doled out to satisfy you. “You have the freedom to speak and of the press, etc.” is far less powerful and meaningful than “Congress shall make no law...”
Exactly, when people mention losses saved by superconductors they don't mean to improve the current grid. It's to route power from the always sunny side of the planet.
> because many companies are owned by decent people who have a personal value system and their companies are reflections of that

Sure. But in context of privacy, tell me, what personal value system is reflected in companies that suck in and process that data? I mean the marketing, the adtech, the data brokerage companies? Being charitable, I imagine it's "do well unto my customers (i.e. other companies); everyone else is irrelevant". Which I guess is defensible under the moral framework exploitative capitalism, but that doesn't satisfy me as one of those "everyone else" whose data gets processed. That people in companies that abuse my data have work ethics is not reassuring me in the slightest.

> When a company is sold or is subject to the interests of people divorced from the original mission and values of the company, problems will likely emerge.

I think almost all of companies are like that. In particular, VC-funded startups are like that from the day one - the investors are absolutely "divorced from the original mission and values of the company".

> their personal or collective self interests emerge to create issues regardless of their structure or purpose.

And my point is that if you look at the structure of these self interests, how they flow in the vector field of incentives, and if you look at what capabilities peoples, companies and governments have, the picture is pretty predictable: private companies will, on average, screw you over always, incessantly; governments (at least the western kind) will be friendly most of the time, but if and when they do decide to screw you up, the immediate consequences will be much worse.
Agreed. I never understood the videos for programming language courses at, say, Coursera.

Written material is better and clearer. The slow speed of the videos drives me mad. Instead of digesting the information and examples at your own pace, you must watch as the teacher carefully enunciates his words and takes forever to belabor a point you already understood.

But strangely enough, some people prefer video to actually reading a detailed, step-by-step written tutorial. Go figure.
It is darkly amusing that the actions of the wealthy are indirectly causing negative interest rates. Wealth, like fertilizer, needs to be spread around to do its magic. The only known robust solution to this problem is to invest in the general public and only governments are sufficiently large and broad to be able to do that. Neoliberalism is turning out to be yet another economic framework that is simple, neat, and wrong.
The article explores the issue but doesn't take a strong position. Your attack on it isn't coherent. What point are you trying to make? Seems like you've got a grudge against... society?
> There is a philosophical conundrum at the root of all this: morality requires we maintain a safety net at the bottom that catches everyone—the alternative is simply inhumane—but we also need an aspirational target at the top, so as to inspire us to excellence, creativity and accomplishment.

The way the author frames this, status is a requirement for "excellence, creativity and accomplishment".

But there are other motivators for excellence, creativity and accomplishment. Some may have an intrinsic yearning to do what they perceive is the right thing. Others may be motivated by love and ready to set aside their own interests for the good of someone else, or for a higher ideal. Still others may be compelled to act by empathy, by seeing others push their own boundaries and step in to reduce their load.

Competition is only one motivator.
How is this different than Walmart, Target, or name any grocery store offering their branded version of products in order to drive down prices?
Both mindsets are necessary, and it's also possible to go too far in both directions. I've been on teams that took planning to an absurd end, which resulted in obsolete plans as soon as implementation started. I've also been on teams which went around in circles because they didn't have any direction and their implementation/discovery wasn't focused on a clear goal.

Long term plans are only inaccurate or wrong if they're over reaching. Plans, like every other part of a project, have to be able to change and grow throughout implementation. It's not long-term planning that is the issue, it's the stagnation of overbearing plans.
So well done. Wish I could upvote more.
Tesla's Elon Musk: Bitcoin Won't Replace Money but It Has a Role
This is an extension of the California law to require companies to have women on boards that happened in 2018 which already potentially doubles some board sizes, though I'm not sure how its played out so far.

Anything that forcibly makes boards larger is probably bad for companies, regardless of the goodness of intentions. If you do not believe requirements like Goldman's will increase board sizes, then you must believe that all companies are willing to fire some number of current board members to meet quota, which seems unlikely.

Peter Thiel in Zero to One:

> A board of three is ideal. Your board should never exceed five people, unless your company is publicly held. (Government regulations effectively mandate that public companies have larger boards—the average is nine members.) By far the worst you can do is to make your board extra large. When unsavvy observers see a nonprofit organization with dozens of people on its board, they think: “Look how many great people are committed to this organization! It must be extremely well run.” Actually, a huge board will exercise no effective oversight at all; it merely provides cover for whatever microdictator actually runs the organization. If you want that kind of free rein from your board, blow it up to giant size. If you want an effective board, keep it small.

More board members may increase intransigence, decrease oversight (cover over who is really making the decisions and who is not), and turn corps more bureaucratic. Regardless of who is joining the board, this is going to increase board sizes, and that's pretty unfortunate for some philosophies of effective management.

It is not that [xyz] representation isn't a problem, but that an effective company structure must be the foremost requirement, ahead of any other (more arbitrary or ephemeral) requirements. Or else there won't be as many great companies to steward in the first place.
"placing a kid in front of a youtube autoplay stream is vastly different than playing a word game on the iPad with their parents right next to them."

Based on my own experiences and internal states, I would still observe that "screen time" tends to have problems at a very low sensory level, in that even when you're doing something educational, you still have the problem that relatively tiny inputs tend to produce outsized sensory effects compared to what the rest of the world yields. I have to admit I cringe a tiny bit when my kids are playing their mandatory educational games and they correctly add two numbers together, and they get a loud chicken squawk and an animation. That's not how the real world works, you do not get loud sounds and animations simply for adding two numbers together. Even if your forebrain is getting trained in something useful like numbers, you can still be feeding dubious input to the lower-level brain systems.

But, that said, screens are a part of the modern world and they must be learned to be dealt with, and it's still better to have something interactive and productive be the bulk of the time than mere flashy empty calories. I'd even distinguish between good video that you engage with, think about, try to guess what's next, think about what makes it work, and video where it's merely flashy-flash bang-boom entertainment. There's a time and a place for the latter; we all need R&R, but it's not large.

There is a way to recover some value even from the over-stimulative nature of the media, which is that as they grow up, they're going to be under attack by advertisers and journalists (but I repeat myself) who abuse overstimulation as much as they possibly can to convince you to do something that costs you but benefits them by overloading your brain, basically. Some training and practice in resisting such things is helpful.
Automated testing existed at the time Brooks wrote his essay. In "The Soul of a New Machine", published 5 years prior, engineers arrived in the morning and examined the results of the automated tests that ran overnight, looking for regressions and improvements in the microcode for the new processor. The author treats this sort of behavior as standard engineering work, something all serious engineering professionals do and have been doing for as long as such a thing was possible. Not new, not novel.

What we have now is the result of refinements and improvements, perhaps it is a series of innovations. You are right - automated testing doesn't refute Brooks.
London Police to deploy facial recognition cameras
There is also a Python library called Elixir - naming is hard.
Order has as many flaws as disorder. There's a balance in between.

Many of us are familiar with that balance in our daily lives; e.g. we don't mop the floor so clean we can eat off it. But code is often continually polished, refactored, documented as soon as there is the slightest smell.

We do keep tidy enough. The standards for office cleanliness never qualifies to surgery standards, and yet a lot of people like to compare their code to medical device safety levels.

Besides that, there is a clear structure to mess. Too much or too little order and you lose control. The right amount will give you the correct structure.
Linux First OS to Merge Multipath TCP with RFC8684 Support
Yeah, it’s not like they created a much much more feature rich language and solved really hard problems.
Exactly this.

So many times I have to spend ten minutes digging into what some of these companies actually do.

It’s highly frustrating. Give some examples of what you do. Explain it in simple language. Don’t rely on conceptual language because it doesn’t tell me what your offering does.
Good to have interested laymen, really, so thanks!

The fundamental point is (in my very humble opinion, mind) you may still have a business case for nuclear in 2020 but no feasible return on investment against non-nuclear sources for decades-long experiments that, all in all, are aimed at marginal improvements in the grand scheme of things and the enormous hassle proponents have to face.

It is fusion or nothing, apart of a couple of Gen IV that are advanced enough already, for the next 20-30 years or such in the West (China or Russia might be more ambitious, but they are not liberal or neoliberal democracies, so they can play a different game to some extent)... until all the PWRs still operating worldwide must be put down for obsolescence.

For a layman computer science comparison, think of the still up-and-running fortran legacy in some sectors (banks?) you won’t really really want to drop if not really forced to... because it works, you need no fix, you do not expect any unheard catastrophic incident or accident anymore.
This is a really fucking grim view of humanity!

Is it not possible for someone to just want to find common positive interests hobbies and goals with a stranger so they can make a connection and be friends? Does it have to be back-stabby position jockeying and dick-measuring? We don't live in an Aaron Sorkin universe. Sometimes smalltalk is just small talk.
> The author presents no evidence of these accounts being bots other than them being closely connected and cliquey.

I had the same reaction. I follow all of the candidates on twitter. Most of the campaigns are periodic quite frankly boring posts by the candidates. Yang lets his gang do most of the tweeting and he retweets their posts. In person he does the same thing. There is a lot of audience participation during his speeches. This makes his campaign more lively.

The reason why I doubt they are bots is that the tweets are intelligent. About a week ago I tweeted something about Yang that was factually incorrect. Someone tweeted back within minutes and very politely corrected what I said. We had a few tweet exchanges then someone else jumped in and said that my confusion was something that they would take back to the campaign. A few days later Yang mentioned my confusion in one of his interviews. I am not exactly sure if this was a coincidence...
> That's why they want to get it up into the graveyard orbit before the eclipse, so if it explodes, it does so in a orbit where the debris are very unlikely to disrupt the operation of active satellites.

A graveyard orbit sounds like it will be flying around up their indefinitely as high speed shrapnel. Does anyone know why they would choose this instead of destroying it on re-entry?
For nuclear you still need to have peaker plants. ALso nuclear is really expensive.
> Don't software projects still keep failing or being cancelled at an alarming rate, even when doing some or all of these improvements?

I have never seen a software project being canceled for technical reasons. Social or political ones otoh...
And do yourself an even bigger favor and use the original game's HE marine voices.
I.e. Krampus?
> I gravitated to those who were chill, and perplexed anyone who tried to play the Status Game by losing on purpose.

I think this is also a sort of power play, but also an amusing one that I too enjoy - e.g., it's quite fun, when questioned about what I do by someone who obviously cares about social status, to not mention my well-paid job working at a FANG company but instead talk about working as a dance teacher.
Vulkan still lacks quite a few DirectX 12 features, LunarG SDK doesn't have anything comparable to DirectXTK, NVidia designs their hardware DirectX first and then retroactively applies the features as Vulkan and OpenGL extensions.

Intel drivers have been historically always much better in DirectX as in OpenGL, where they even used to lie about their available GL capabilities.

AMD, since they dropped my card from their FOSS drivers, I don't have much fate on their FOSS love.
> You just limited the set of programs you can write ... which is smaller than the set of good programs

That's true of all static type systems.

Also, the whole point of Rust is to cover cases where performance and memory management are important. If you can use a GC'd langauge for you program, then pick one of the many fantastic existing ones.
Interactive Urinal
Chrome browser is constantly updated, whereas installer just runs once. They can change things in an update
Doesn't that "just drop down to C" get complicated when you need to pass callback functions though? Users will want to write them in the original language for convenience and to use closures safely and easily. Wouldn't that kill your performance if the callback function is just Python again but called many times (e.g. an integrand for a numeric integration function, which integrand depends on captured runtime params). This is no problem in Julia, what are people doing cases like this in Python land?
As for 3. Haskell already does it now with the IO monad.

I can see how having something more specific for effects than the most generic IO type is the next step on an evolutionary path for languages with an advanced type system. The concern whether or not it is worthwhile then extends to the whole type system.
Finally, a work-from-home solution for Nursing!
But they don't know which half!
If you have an enterprise, HashiCorp Vault has the best features and integrations that I know of (everyone should be using short lived credentials, but who actually does if they're not using Vault?). If you can't use that, AWS Secrets Manager for its simpler integration of secret rotation, and if that's too expensive, AWS SSM PS. Google Cloud Secrets Manager would be analogous to AWS Secrets Manager.

The benefit of AWS Secrets Manager has been that it integrates directly with other services. In ECS/Fargate, you can create a task definition and list secrets to be injected at run time. It also has features like secret rotation so you don't have to roll your own (well, you kinda do w/Lambda, but they have samples), and you can use things like IAM to lock down access per-secret or per-IAM-ARN-hierarchy.

Like everything in AWS, it'll cost you more, but it'll also eliminate a lot of engineering time. If you're trying to pinch pennies, use Vault or something hokey like pulling a token from AWS SSM PS or S3 and rely on IAM roles/profiles/etc for access control.
Simple: they're not venture-backed so no one is expecting billions from them.

23andMe could be a longer-term sustainable business but taking $700m from investors means you must keep growing even if there's no really opportunity for growth.
Since when do they test for those in insurance related drug screenings?
She's observing a common phenomenon. I don't think she's saying all human interaction is a status negotiation.
> and are quite happy to go everywhere they can if there is some issue with containment.

It's turned into glass as far as I know (which isn't much). It's not like some ooze to leak out.
I'm not a programmer/dev, however ...

You can plan and plan and plan. Then start and realise that you should have _tried_ earlier because that informs the planning more (close the loop, iterate, go again). That's why prototypes/MVPs are a thing, surely.
Wow! I see that they removed flash now!
Do you guys remember when Engadget made fun of Galaxy note, claiming 5" was just too big? Remember the imore folks making thumb-reach illustrations that showed the 3.5" iPhone had the optimal size and Galaxy note was just useless?

This behavior reminds of the Gretzky quote about being where the puck will be. Well, some tech journalist are standing where the puck was 2 years ago and refuse to move.

While I am not geting a Fold myself, I can definitely see the apeal. More importantly, I can see how this can evolve into other products. Remember this when we all use thin foldable tablets instead of clunky laptops.