skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The best 1-on-1 meetings feel like a natural conversation between two professional adults. This list of questions can provide some ideas for starting points if you pick and choose carefully, but not all of the questions are a good idea.

Specifically: While it's important to listen to your employee's complaints about the company, it's equally important to avoid giving them the wrong impression that you're going to fix everything for them. Questions like "If you were CEO, what's the first thing you would change?" or "Are there any aspects of our culture you wish you could change?" or "What’s the No. 1 problem with our organization, and what do you think's causing it?" can make employees resentful of the company when the manager can't actually make changes.

Many of these questions can also create a false expectation that it's the manager's job to solve all of the employees' problems for them. It's important to listen to your team and work to improve their situations, but it's equally important that you work on empowering them to solve their own problems where possible. A common mistake for first time managers is to try to absorb every small issue their team encounters, which creates an unsustainable atmosphere of dependency on the manager.

Another common mistake of first-time managers is forgetting that managers must also represent the company to the employee. As a first time manager, it's tempting to think you're going to be the super manager you never had, using your powers to fight back against the company and make everything right for your employees. In reality, you need to balance the employee's wishes against the company's direction. You can't force the tail to wag the dog. Make sure you communicate what is and isn't within your power to change. Avoid commiserating with employees with employees about minutia, and instead set a tone of professionalism and reasonable boundary-setting.

Most importantly: Don't forget to reiterate the organization's goals, project updates, and other company information to employees. It's easy for managers to forget that their employees might not see or hear important developments unless their manager communicates it down the chain. As a manager, it's your job to keep your employees informed and up to date. Simple updates in the form of "Your work on X project is very important for the delivery of Y product, which the CEO identified as our top priority for retaining customers" are much more effective than "When do you think X project will be finished? We really need it." Context and relevance are critical for helping your team make the right decisions.
Well you said it's not helpful because everyone would be dead, this response seems like moving the goalpost, also do you think these people will be born mostly on Mars?
I didn't realize I even had to make the case for DNSSEC being a tool for centralization. That seemed patently obvious to me. If it wasn't to you, well, here goes: DNSSEC is a tree-based PKI, a single one, for the whole Internet, whose irrevocable roots are controlled by world governments. It is the archetypical centralized system.

The "security problems" you raised with MTA-STS all boil down to "doesn't use DNSSEC, like I want it to" (in fact, that's literally the first security problem you raised, though all the "relies on the WebPKI" points say the same thing as well).

It is not surprising or interesting to me that DNS operators are excited about DNSSEC. But, obviously, the fact that no tech company other than Cloud Flare has adopted it refutes the argument that network and security engineers are accepting it. The opposite thing is true: the protocol has been categorically rejected, and is moribund.

I'll keep going with this thread if you want, but you should be aware that we are the only two people reading it.
This is what always happens with SNSs, isn't it? The company starts small, and user-centric. People likes the website, a community starts to grow. And then, the company starts to find ways to be profitable. But at this point, most people won't leave, they will stay for the community.

Think about Facebook, Twitter, Quora and now Reddit.

I am not saying the company is doing anything _bad_ per se. A company has to be profitable, otherwise it would die. So, it seems to me that for a SNS to stay "good", it cannot be backed by a for profit company.

I don't know how that would work. Maybe things like WT.Social and Mastodon are the answer.
Yes definitely. But only reading the code and looking at the history can sometimes be enough to build the picture when the same names repeatedly show up in troublesome code
That’s why I meant by “ultimately arbitrary but apparently obvious”: mathematically, they are just one combination in an infinite set of internally consistent axiom sets, but apparently obvious insofar as they very accurately model our universe. Whether other universes could exist where such axioms do not obtain is something of an imponderable question.
You’re right, Windows can—but whatever app important enough to justify the effort of running within a virtual machine probably can’t.

(And you’re assuming that Microsoft will sell you a license for Windows on ARM in a VM, or that anyone will build that virtual machine software to support it.)
I‘m also curious about this, I’ve just joined twitter and I’m looking for accounts to follow
Yes exactly.
But firms consist of humans. Humans mostly are too lazy and think too short them. So they rather bcc a bad job description to 10 recruitment agencies, hoping some has a warm, fitting candidate instead of briefing one or two agencies really well.
> If I am free as long as I only do it "The Right Way", I'm not free.

I don't think punching you in the face because I disagree with your opinion is a legitimate form of free expression, so I think your claim is overly broad. Clearly there are some right and wrong ways to express your freedom. Absolute freedom is simply incoherent.

That said, I agree with the general thrust of your point that we need to be forgiving with people's expression. People are imperfect, should be able to make mistakes and they should not suffer for the rest of their lives for earnestly expressing an unpopular opinion or engaging in debate on a contentious issue.

I think this will become a civil rights issue in coming years.
>I left Reddit years ago due to the “community” getting weird,

Yeah, one thing is that Reddit the company is getting shady, but the community has gotten rather toxic the last few years. I closed my account two years ago, roughly, because the community started be rather exclusive. If you're not an overly political correct leftish American city dweller you're opinions aren't welcome. There are Reddit approved opinions, any deviation from these opinions will result in you having a bad time.

I'm honestly surprised that the NSFW subreddit haven't been killed off yet, but I suppose Reddit see a business opportunity in all the cam-girls hanging around.
But being a power of 2 I think has a massive advantage. There is also an advantage to have a chain of the square roots lead to 2. That leaves 4, 16, and 256.

16 seems most sensible of those.

You'd end up with a number system where everything is a sum of halvings and doublings, which is conceptually much simpler. Sure, you can't represent a third neatly, but I don't consider that a very important property.
> Mark my words: the web is in danger.

Is it? The protocols and the technologies are open and standardized. You're perfectly capable of registering a DNS name, hooking up a server to the network and starting a HTTP daemon. Big companies can't stop you from doing that.

"But nobody is doing that today! Too much hassle!", I hear you saying.

Ah! You have a point... but that's based on a bias. You're switching cause and effect. Why are billions able to post content on the Web? Because that's what big platforms allow them to do. There implementation simply has lowered the bar for a huge influx of non-technical people to start publishing content.

The trade-off these millions are making is giving up on their privacy, or having to endure the rules and weird quirks, towards those that own and operate the platforms that they are using.

Publishing content on the Web never was easy to begin with. Tim Berners-Lee originally invented HTTP because he simply wanted to connect researchers and share scientific knowledge. Most of the tools that power the Web were never designed for end users. They are designed for robustness, performance, security and so on.

The only merit of Zuckerberg and Jack is that they used to tools in such a way to abstract that complexity away for end users. Exactly like what Bill Gates and Steve Jobs did by providing windowing systems with a visual language that was easy to understand for end users.

Yelling "the Web is in danger" would be like yelling "computers are in danger" because billions of users never learned to use command line tools, don't know what a kernel is, let alone understand what a file system is.

The free and open Web was and always will be an affair of people who have an understanding of open, standardized technologies such as HTML, CSS, HTTP, URL's, TCP/IP and so on. You can't have one without the other, really. Freedom and openness are a function of the distribution of knowledge to implement and enforce them.

Now, the real problem, at this point, isn't technological. It's regulatory. The real problem is that these platforms don't have a proper paid offering for users who want to share and publish content. Because end users, like you and me, aren't the customer, they are the product for advertisers. And so consumer and - at this point - civil rights don't seem to apply to them. That's what really matters here.

But that problem is only a problem caused because those very same platforms allowed millions to enter this virtual world. Equally, expecting that anyone - including your grandparents - learns HTML and how to set up an Apache webserver, well, that might equally a bridge too far, no?

If ISP's decided to stop supporting open standards and switched to proprietary protocols to link computers, that's when you need to ask questions. And this has been tried... and failed already in a different form some 30 to 40 years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minitel
Code Signing Failure Due to Symlink Folders
..in my experience it can also lead to antagonistic thoughts about people who I have never met and only know through the code they wrote :)
Also, have the humility and the generosity to assume complex code is that way for some reason. The people who came before you are not likely to be such bigger idiots than you. If something looks wacko, slow down and ask yourself how it got to be that way.
Sticking with security though - a JWT certainly can be used to identify a user. The author quote a case where an application have obtained a token on behalf of the user and that's valid too, but it's a less common (in my experience) scenario.

A user token tells you (the relying party) that the user has been authenticated to the satisfaction of the issuer (often Google, Microsoft, Facebook but it can be anyone inclusing your own authority). You can be sure the token has been issued by the issuer due to the signature. If you trust the issuer then you can trust the time-limited token.

As far as how the issuer has confirmed the user's identity and whether it represents a person, service, etc. can vary.

There 's obviously way more to federated authentication that I want to post in a comment, but there you go. I believe the OP was getting slightly confused between some OAuth2 implementations and proper security implementations like OpenId Connect.
> Funny how its 'blantant' when men are at a disadvantage. Where was this comment the other 99% of the places, when women and minorities are nearly non-existant? Not worth mentioning?

I'm not sure when or what you are talking about, but if there is injustice against anybody, I speak out against it. It just so happens that movements can go too far and become retaliatory, which is what I would like to prevent.

Women and minorities should OBVIOUSLY have equal opportunity, but the implementation of that cannot harm majority males BECAUSE::: that is not a good long term strategy for society. It WILL cause (and already has caused) resentment and anger and I do not want to see a USA devolve into an actual second civil war.

> I know its an idealistic comment, that the world should be fair in every place. But because these comments come out only when men are not in their usual favored position, I cannot help but see them as a kind of 'institutional bias' for men.

These comments do not ONLY come out in defense of men. Perhaps it is the particular posts you view, but to say there isn't overwhelming defense of women and minorities in the case of injustice is telling me that you aren't seeing the full picture.

I just explained in this post that MYSELF, a person wary of a situation disadvantaging white men, also speaks up when a minority or woman is disadvantaged for their sex or skin color.

Injustice is injustice.
it says "try java" with a link to https://javabattle.net/
I confess I'm having trouble understanding what principle #2 means. I would appreciate it if someone who read that and responded with a feeling of 'yeah that definitely makes sense' could elaborate.
"Odd" is just a word that means "not divisible by two". There is truly nothing special about a prime not being divisible by two. I could equally say "3 is a legendary prime god amongst countably infinite non-divisible-by-three primes", "5 is a legendary prime god amongst countably infinite non-divisible-by-five primes"... The only difference is that we do not have special words that mean non-divisible-by-three, non-divisible-by-five, etc.

In this regard, I don't see 2 as a special prime. Saying "2 is the only even prime" is the same as saying "2 is the only prime divisible by two", which, by definition, can be said about any other prime.
Surviving the Organisational Side Quest
OpenFaaS comes to k9s, the Kubernetes CUI
> It is really unfortunate to see the standard layer bloated to compensate for the shortcomings of some framework.

That's not remotely what's happening. You could have the same issues with (and use this API on) a jQuery-mutated DOM.
Interviews ain't broken, they optimize for different goals
> Browsers are agents of the user

The most-used browsers, too, are agents of the company making them.
The question was which browser and why.
Viruses and prions are so small it's pretty much impossible to be sure you have removed them all from some sample.

Sure you can remove most, but you'll never get all of them.
Is the Numberphile video based on the paper? Because the paper was out on 30 May 2016 and video was out on 4 May 2016
How does Microsoft handle DST servicing when a country stops following DST?
>it says that we may need to physically fight those whose 'opinions' are backed by force or the credible threat of it.

"Internet radicals" have come to life in the real world, and organized such that they threaten violence, either racist ("race war now") or anti-semitic. Popper's point specifically talks about "rational argument", of which the pure rhetoric (as pointed out by Sartre) is the only tool anti-semites have at their disposal. They do not argue with rational argument.

If my mileage does vary, what then?

Marcuse wrote about the requirement of "rational argument" in 1965:

"Now in recalling John Stuart Mill's passage, I drew attention to the premise hidden in this assumption: free and equal discussion can fulfill the function attributed to it only if it is rational expression and development of independent thinking, free from indoctrination, manipulation, extraneous authority. The notion of pluralism and countervailing powers is no substitute for this requirement. One might in theory construct a state in which a multitude of different pressures, interests, and authorities balance each other out and result in a truly general and rational interest. However, such a construction badly fits a society in which powers are and remain unequal and even increase their unequal weight when they run their own course. It fits even worse when the variety of pressures unifies and coagulates into an overwhelming whole, integrating the particular countervailing powers by virtue of an increasing standard of living and an increasing concentration of power."
Fully agree. A white LED might be better, as long as is for notifications only. There's no need for having a constant light otherwise (that's the beauty of eink)
I interpreted it to mean that if we do not rely on writing, but merely use it as an augmentation, that our record will be incomplete and therefore not trustworthy, just a list of rumors. To promote the writing to a first class witness is necessary for it to be truly a work partner, a reliable source and a type of a mind to confer and converse with, in a weird but equal way as another person.
As a manager as well as a human being, you shouldn't have to ask those questions during a 1:1, the well being of your team should be something you're observing from the inside.

And, more importantly, you should not delegate the responsibility of flagging it when something is wrong. You should know without asking.
Are we living in the most chaotic times?
Take it up with Gödel ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
General transpilation is logically impossible.
Mainly because the React method that gets called is literally "render()". Also, "render" is a more abstract word than that, and can really apply to anything being derived from something else: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rendering_(animal_products)#...

That said, I can see how the multiple adjacent uses of the term might get confusing
Smaller particles get filtered through diffusion based processes: they like landing on surfaces, and the mask is full of surfaces.
There is this tendency to reduce everything to simple rules that are simply wrong. Nuance takes more effort to put into words and to understand. And so we end up with these 'soundbite' bits of wisdom that are worse than nothing at all.

Writing something down requires clarity, and clarity can be gained in many ways. Writing something down that isn't clear yet will result in (hopefully) spotting that lack of clarity before you press 'send' or 'publish'. But that doesn't mean that all for stuff that ends up written is happening while writing it down and without a very good idea of what you are trying to communicate beforehand you'll end up with bad writing.
I still can't use their new desktop design on my laptop. Apparently a 7 years old MacBook Pro isn't powerful enough to run neither Reddit nor Imgur particular well. I can do development, run an AppleTV emulator, VM's, a ton of Firefox tabs, and a stack of Python virtualenv's, just not the redesigned Reddit at a reasonable speed.
With all due respect (which is not much), this is complete nonsense.
Yes, we already talked about this. The keyword here is "potentially", which I'd swap with "theoretically".
I wouldn't say "common". If you avoid "DOM thrashing" (where your code repeatedly mutates the DOM and then measures it and then mutates and then measures), the browser is pretty good at batching these computations and the vast majority of projects will never run into this as a problem. And thrashing is something you should solve by improving your JS, not mitigate with this API.
The very idea that there are two ends is your fallacy bro you are already putting yourself in the magnanimous role of giving something

A 1:1 is inherently a meeting of minds where there is no power imbalance and genuine trust can develop

The way you make it sound is like the CIA giving mandatory lie detector tests where one person is strapped to a chair and the other is taking notes

I'm calling false corporate bullshit as a human being
Top-down operator precedence parsing (2010)
>You mentioned truck attacks; someone recently drove a van through a tent full of people canvassing for Trump in Florida. Do we deplatform wherever he was hanging out online, or is it just the combination of "did a terrible thing" and "has opinions that we don't like" that justifies censorship?

This would make the paradox of tolerance laughably restricted - it would require that we think only on the level of individual action, and that there would need to be nothing short of completely unanimous support for an action. This misses out on the idea of stochastic terrorism. From another angle, let's say there were a society of Nazis in the real world. Most, but not all of the group argue that the Jews should be murdered. One of the group murders a Jew. By your metric, we would only be allowed to revoke tolerance of the group if every member murders a Jew. Isn't that a very high price to pay? Would we only be justified in revoking tolerance from a child porn forum if every member has abused a child?
> Also, do you recall the fix? They remotely changed the activation phrase that triggered the laugh.

I don't see that as a big deal as the data is likely always sent to a remote server for parsing and processing.
Maybe, but the app can’t install malware outside of its sandbox, access my contacts, location, or any files. Unless it does something like play a silent audio track, I can disable it from running in the background, keep it from accessing cellular data, etc.
It’s just software. There dozens of alternatives: Craigslist, next door, targeting all the things you say

You’ve fallen for exactly Zuckerbergs real goal: make his printing press the only one that matters.

But then his invention isn’t as unique as a physical printing press would have been to a community even just a generation ago.

It’s not as hard to duplicate.

This is where we ended up with forums like this one jacking itself off at how novel it’s Todo app, and IM clone are. So ubiquitous it’s banal, a single example is barely worth the extreme value placed upon it.

This site spent years being mesmerized by the values placed in these companies. It was market manipulation: keep attention on a select few. Government let them become a monopoly of information because they could see the value in distributing their message. Powers that be are always at the cutting edge of information distribution. Not cause they care about tech but propagandizing the public.

And the people cheered it on.

And since you’re so worried about the local value: imagine the local value to tech workers who are hired to deal with local tech needs instead of it being outsourced to FAANGs which can restrict hiring and manipulate wages as they have.

Your post is pure propaganda, mate. You’re regurgitating exactly the talking point they want. Please continue to carry water for the rich man, since he’s so concerned about the local value you highlight... while bailing on taxes that would directly help locals that prop his wealth up by continuing to go to work.

Give me a fucking break.
I used this, well the idea that numbers often tend to be distributed evenly in exponential space, in my MEng thesis. The idea was that because so often in computers our additions or other arithmetic operations involve at least one small number then most of the switching activity in an adder should be concentrated in the lower order bits.

So the plan was to make the low order bits of the adder slower and more power efficient. Make the high order bits faster and less power efficient. Meet the same overall clock rate target given by the worst case but use less power in the average case.

Sadly memory operations, which look a lot like pure entropy, were sufficiently common that the gains just weren't worth the design effort.
The only ones that require user interaction are contacts, location, storage, microphone, camera.

Microphone is granted along camera. Camera is needed if you want to upload photos.(I might be wrong about the microphone)

Storage is always necessary for apps that cache anything from the web.

That leaves contacts and location.

So you can disable contacts and location, but all your metadata including device and network information is read and probably transmitted. In most cases it's good enough as location information as well.