skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
You might enjoy The 2020 Commission Report, speculative fiction by a foreign policy PhD specializing in nuclear proliferation.

One of his central interests is how these decisions are made. Where is the conference room? Where are the decision-makers? What does it take to get them assembled? What are their moods and information diets, and how might that influence them in a moment of crisis? What are plausible sequences of "accidental" escalation events that might align the stars for a nuclear launch? And how might Trump's Twitter interact with all of this?

It's fiction, obviously, but if you're interested in the guy's bona fides, this is some really fascinating open source intelligence work [0].

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9QbI8Jf4hg
I'll play devil's advocate and say I don't dislike coding interviews. Most of the time they are done completely wrong however.

They are extremely useful to filter out candidates that simply cannot program, and who won't be able to no matter how much mentoring time you 'invest' in them. I've heard about interviews for senior engineers that were totally derailed by a simple FizzBuzz. I like wordcount (the wc *nix command) as a warmup/screening question simply because either: The candidate comes up with an algorithm for it and test cases OR starts counting whitespace and derails the implementation with a cascade of if-else for every new test cases that breaks the previous implementation (I've seen if-else to check for the n cases I suggested...).

But honestly I feel there is so much cargo-culting for coding interview. Especially if you ask for compliable code of well known (as described by a textbook) algorithms you ultimately assess rote memorizations skills and not engineering.

Convex Hull doesn't sound so bad to be honest. If I was using this question I would expect someone to be able to come up with the gift wrapping algorithm with maybe a little bit of help. What, as an interviewer, would really want to see is if the candidate can come up with test cases and a way to test whether his solution is actually a convex hull and then try to break down the problem and come up with an algorithm. I sure wouldn't expect to be able to type what's on the board and for it to compile right away (it's a board, not an IDE!) but I expect the candidate to be able to walk me through the code and run it line by line through some test cases.
Not taking a stand just because the US Government doesn't lead by example is foolish
We can be critic to the police, but who is willing to take their place and do a better job ?
What do we find if we look for the opposite in thoses 400 videos ?
The unit expressions need more information. Some of it is simply extending with more operator: For example, logarithms and exponents can be carried through and track that the units resulting from log(e, height in cm) are log(e, height in cm) by allowing the log() function to be used in a unit expression. This allows validation that if we add log(x) to log(y) and we raise the base to the power later we expect units of x * y.

For sums vs means, we need to include count of samples in the mean. If we forget it and it becomes a free variable N, we lose the ability to combine by addition, but other operations may still hold. The unit expression for a sum of count quantities is therefore different from the unit expression for average. You can derive unit expressions for std. deviation and other expressions as well.

Ultimately you also need a subjective ontology as well. Your usual unit system says it’s fine to add mass to mass and mass per volume to mass per volume. That misses the semantics of mass of what per volume of what? Mass of sodium per liter of water and mass of potassium per liter of water, maybe. Mass of sodium per liter of water and mass of hydrogen per km3 of star, I don’t think so.

Unit tracking is all about validation of the sensibility of performing math, and the more detail you need the closer the unit expressions become to a signature for the math + objects being quantified.

Time permitting from my day job, I’ve been trying to flesh this out for a while and could use interested parties to poke at it, give me a spur to flesh out and refine more. Counts of objects, linear measurements and rational combinations work out pretty well in this, plus stats and transforms like log and exp. Angular units are a TBD, I think they’ll be tractable, just a little different than conventionally expected.
Trinity was a plutonium device. Reactors were uranium devices. Nobody was really sure if the plutonium implosion device would work - that's why they did the test; they were very sure that the uranium bullet device, that was used on Hiroshima without testing, would work.
It's kind of like the saying "Teach a man to fish...". You can build a server once, but let's say one region in your hosting service goes down, can you really build a new server or cluster for that matter from scratch in time before your users notice?
“I love authority”
Does it work for semantic segmentation? That's really where I'm struggling to see how this could work.
Right. Since the video is private and disappears any time an officer might be implicated, the only remaining effects are harmful ones.
This website redirects me to https://guce.advertising.com/collectIdentifiers?sessionId=

I guess I have to stop browsing Engadget.
I meant companies

But given the companies we’re talking about maybe subconsciously I meant what I wrote
> All it does is create a zero-sum game, so I have no incentive to compliment anyone else.

I think that's not quite right. You have incentive to compliment those who you would rather be working with, which hopefully correlates pretty well with those who deserve compliment. Of course, this is weighed against your other incentives, some of which are probably more important.

This comment should not be taken as any meaningful endorsement of stack ranking.
Great knife, I actually have the Goldclass Damascas 940.

Obviously not as an EDC.
The flip side of this is, if you want to sink someone's career, badmouth them to their manager.

Having worked at many companies, I've observed how shockingly easy it is for a manager's assessment of their reports to be colored by "hearsay" whether good or bad.

I once had several members of another team who deeply disgreed with a product decision I'd made complain to my manager that I was being uncooperative, not a team player, etc. To avoid getting fired, I had to ask a bunch of members of various other teams to (honestly) tell my manager what a good job I was doing. Which worked -- according to him I'd really "turned things around" in the space of just a couple weeks (!). In the end it was 100% political, a bad manager who had no idea how to actually assess my work for what it was and so relied entirely on what he was "hearing", and I quit as soon as I could for a better job.

So yes, tell someone's manager when they're doing a great job. But it sucks that we have to rely on this stuff at all, rather than managers who can actually assess your work directly.
Start a new "congrats on amazing work" email chain to thank your coworker, and cc: their manager
Back then the politics were a lot less polarized and you had sane domestic policy under FDR, these are different times. That was when U.S. understood that you can only attain so much by brute force.
Nobody died due to lack of a ventilator. Please prove your claims.
I recently switched stacks and I'm not coming up to speed as fast as they would like.

I'm also becoming demoralized after being looked over or screwed over for about 4 years.
I'm not gonna argue with you over whether the metaphor I used was applicable or not--the point of the metaphor was to communicate and it's clear I succeeded in communicating. It's clear you understood what I meant, because you provided another example. Yes, whether or not you agree the bike shedding metaphor applies, you have to agree that having the 100th tutorial on how to do something that's in the docs that ships with the language is equally pointless.
I agree, the ranking algorithms should be based off genuine engagement in a discussion, not opaque votes or likes. I'm working on a new discussion site https://sqwok.im, with the intent to foster open, frictionless, and accessible conversations with anyone, where the relevance is determined by other signals including activity. There are different issues to work around with that model but it more closely resembles how we interact irl (real world "vote" is usually just walking away).
Yeah, but for some tasks, like recognizing a car, or something else you'd have to write pretty sophisticated code to even get to a reasonable result. It's far easier in those cases to use supervised learning to have a NN learn to do it for you.
Disney uses PyTorch for animated character recognition
This, but also, the premise isn’t even valid. Race is an extremely poor predictor of power or success relative to other variables. People are just lazy with stats, driven by an ideological agenda, and selective about the studies they decide to focus on. Also, critical examinations where they are most necessary are not morally fashionable, and can even cost one their job.

Even if this were true, which it isn’t, pushing this message leads to worse outcomes for the populations in question. If you are taught that the system is against you and you have no agency, the only rational response is not to try, and instead just harbor resentment. This perpetuates a vicious cycle and leaves everyone worse off. Learned helplessness is real.
Have a look at the map.
Adding on to +1 this.

Zulip is great for async communication because it surfaces unread messages in an easy to skim and non-overwhelming way.

After a day of not checking Zulip, the user can then open the chat and (before seeing any actual messages) see:

1) which streams have had activity.

2) which threads/topics within those streams have had activity.

then choose which topics to read in a "relevant to me, not relevant to me" quick skim.

Having the topics within streams also allows those topic discussions to persist over time without being lost in the deluge of other messages.

There might be thousands of other chat messages between when I ask a question in #frontend > supercool.js but a teammate will skim later, see

#frontend > supercool.js [1]

and think "hey I know about supercool.js, what's up?" then respond.

I can also search to see if there's already a supercool.js topic thread and catch up on what we've discussed in the past.
the big fat GDPR-circumvention is also kind of a give-away that they couldn't care less about your privacy.
I'm so tired of seeing this kind of nonsense over and over again. No, it doesn't take much less space to move 50 people in a bus than with cars because the effing bus doesn't go where 50 random people need to go. And people wouldn't be owning private cars if it wasn't convenient for them, consequently it's impossible that life would instantly improve for everyone if they had to give them up like the author claims. Then this "induced demand" nonsense that pops up all the time. It's impossible because total traffic cannot increase due to new roads since there aren't infinite people or cars to begin with. The traffic moving to new or wider roads is missing elsewhere, which is usually good.

But hey, go ahead, try this pipe dream in any large city. It'll work great, like that recent "summer of love" in Seattle.
* > Every customer service rep that works at any of those places can pull up info on anyone at any time. *

This is simply not true. For example with banks, high-profile accounts can't be accessed by regular tellers. If someone attempts to, it is logged and someone is notified that Teller X tried to access the account.

Now that Twitter is being used for high-profile official communications, they need to re-design their employee control panels to limit, alert, and control what an employee can do with an account.

The fact that important credentials on so many high-profile verified accounts could be changed without notifying employees or locking the affected accounts until the actions are verified is unacceptable.
For sure, i'm just telling the GP that their request for something that outputs assembly could be done with minor modifications depending on the assembly language they want to output.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Any citations?
The listed use cases here struck me as odd, I can't imagine why I or anyone wanting to read a news article would allow the site access to my webcam. Nor do I think most users would turn on their cameras to help with any given sites analytics.

So aside from games, what is the actual use case here ?
Journey to Ixtlan.
And Algol and others. It's a nice feature when available, certainly my preference. I find I can often write things more cleanly given an expression oriented languages than ones dominated by statements.
Oh this is great! I hate filling in captchas... would be so cool if the web could get rid of that need
> Einstein (the real one) was concerned that the Germans might develop nuclear weapons first and advised the US to do it.

Leo Szilard had this realization, wrote the letter, and got Einstein to sign it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%E2%80%93Szil%C3%A1rd_...
I’m picturing someone already leaning over the railing, somewhat close to the gun, by himself (since nobody alerted of his fall), while his ship is firing and cruising in enemy waters. My mental image might be wrong, but not exactly the smartest way to get captured.
If they were stealthily looking for dirt, why would they draw so much attention to the compromise? There’s no way Twitter wouldn’t examine all of the accessed accounts now and the “this process access” theory is both sketchy in general (Guccifer 2.0 publicized the idea of putting forgeries into a dump to make them seem legitimate) and wouldn’t apply in this case since these are different accounts.
a lot of people also ended up having to get checks even though they filed last year and everything. If you used any of the "pay for your e-filing with your tax refund", "get your tax refund as an amazon gift card with a 5% bonus!" etc type arrangements, your tax filing company actually was the bank account of record and the IRS has to send you a check since they don't have real banking info for you.
As someone who recently sat through jury selection, it's a remarkably common view. So many American citizens revere the badge, are willing to trust the person in uniform despite evidence to the contrary, and automatically assume the person sitting in the defendant's chair is guilty.
Right but your original example was someone filming a policeman at close range. Should you be beaten for filming the police?
Track down an old show called Denno Coil. Every character wears AR glasses, and there's practically a startup idea in every episode of the first season. It is so very Japanese that they used AR on a show from over 10 years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennō_Coil
Exactly. I think Noam Chomsky said something along these lines: I cannot think of a case where a nation intervened in or influenced another country in a purely disinterested humanitarian fashion.

That doesn't mean national interests cannot coincide with good outcomes, though.
How deadly is Covid-19? A biostatistician answers
New $200m Oatly alt-milk maker funding round
You raise an interesting point.

Your comment failed at PRP.

You showed how difficult giving criticism is.
It's not as bad as it sounds. Yes, it certainly happens and it sucks for the good person that it happens to. But managers like that don't last very long.

When you get let go, they ask in the exit interview if you were warned, if your manager gave you any feedback leading up to it, etc. And then they follow up if the person says, "it was a total shock". I've definitely seen managers make some bad firing decisions, but they were let go soon afterwards. Word gets around quickly to their manager that they let go someone who was a strong contributor.
Why would China be a threat to liberal democracies? I get that people don't like the fact that China is not democratic, but how does that suddenly turn into a threat?
Why wouldn't they? To me it seems unthinkable they wouldn't invest significant resources into such an investigation, and I could think of plenty of ways they could narrow down suspects. There's a trade-off between potential reward and decreased exposure risk, there. Also, as stated by others, they'd already need to have significant (fiat) capital, and ideally a history of trading (else they'll automatically be near or at the top of the suspects list), which seems unlikely to me.

People with enough money to be investing regularly also probably don't need to orchestrate elaborate smash-and-grab cybercons to make money. People in such a position would already be doing fine and would have the added bonus of never fearing going to jail. I suspect whoever did this likely doesn't have much fiat money, or if they do, it's probably mostly dirty money which wouldn't be feasible to invest with.

Here, there's no risk/reward trade-off like there would be from shorting. It's a much more scalable attack: every additional hijacking results in additional expected value, but no additional risk. With some form of stock betting, the more you scale it up (in terms of reward potential), the more the activity would stand out.

I think the attackers made the smartest possible decision, given what they had/could do, if their goal was purely total profit (plus not getting caught). If their primary goal wasn't money, then it's certainly a squandered opportunity, but most criminals are just in it for the money.
If the array length is known to be strictly less than 255 then there is definitely an out-of-bounds access inside the loop, but since this is a panic rather than undefined behavior it could matter how many loop iterations are executed before the out of bounds access occurs, so the check can't be omitted.

If the array size is definitely greater than or equal to 255 then all the array accesses in the loop will be in bounds and no further bounds check is required.
> How can society not be "a cage" in some respects?

Calling it a cage is reductio ad absurdum. The presence of social norms does not invalidate the agency of humans or groups of humans in the way a cage does. Characterizing it as a cage is a strawman, often used by those who would simply like to destroy it and erect a "cage" of their own preference.
Going fully serverless with Cloudflare Workers
Why is this nebula shaped like a butterfly?
Sorry the EU
Honestly, I'd just like to see anything that outputs assembly I can run through an assembler to create an executable. I've fumblingly written a bit of this code myself, but always felt hampered by a lack of knowledge.
Well, IaC is way better than nothing but it isn't a substitude for documentation. I had to learn an AWS CloudFormation codebase and although it's pretty clean it's still loaded with quirks (for how stuff worked years ago and to workaround shortcomings of our application).

Most IaC describes how something is configured, you should also describe why something is configured. Most IaO platforms allow you to write comments, make use of it!
How to build dark mode emails for developers
I can verify this does happen in some call centers.
I'm stressed because they will find a way to get rid of me if I stagnate too long. They begin to think there is something wrong with you if you haven't moved up. I'm 8 years into my career and this company, I'm a midlevel developer, and have an MSIS.
There is certainly some parallels but I doubt things will get so far.

It is in China's interest to stall for time. As their growth is higher than USA's, they will eventually have a bigger military and the US will be unable to fight a war over the South China sea.

Trump however is a joker. If he stands to loose the coming election he may choose to provoke a conflict.
Coronavirus data has disappeared after administration shifted control from CDC
Thanks for following up on that! So nothing too magical.
Donald Trump has battled to block my film's release for years. Now he has failed
But is it really? Were the people complaining about the war in Yemen or the atrocities of Saudi Arabia or the horrors of the Iraq War able to meaningfully change anything?

Or is it the case that the only time that human rights actually enact change is when there is an underlying material interest, making them little more than a veneer?
I can sympathize with the author. I think they are probably correct in the general, that this tendency to try to treat normal psychological responses as something fixable with pharmaceuticals is a problem.

That said I have some very real anecdotes related to emotional responses to things. These are things I've noticed that very much link short term emotional effects to physiological effects in the brain.

The first, is a tool I learned from someone living with a type1 diabetic. He noticed that occasionally they'd end up in weirdly emotional antagonistic discussions with his partner, and eventually linked it to when his partner had low blood sugar. So, they established, that whenever conversations turn irrational, they pause and do a blood sugar check. Usually addressing this underlying problem made their conversation much more productive (and certainly just taking a break helped too). Similarly with my wife, we've established rules that allow one of us to pause the conversation to make sure the other is dealing with some underlying physical issue, usually one or both of us are tired or hungry when we start fighting. Tired and hungry both have profound effects on brain chemistry, so addressing them can have very real psychological effects.

My other anecdote is related to a correlation I've found with mental health and taking a vitamin D supplement. It's not entirely clear to me whether taking vitamin D prevents my tendency towards mild depression, or if I'm tending towards depression so I stop taking vitamin D. But I know that if I keep taking it on a daily basis, my mood tends to be more stable. If I were to replace it with a sugar pill it may have similar effects, but given I live in Seattle where many tend to be deficient, I'd probably start to notice in a couple weeks.
What's the concern that's being identified in all these stories? It would be good to have an enumeration of clear concerns.

Is it that:

1) the companies are letting Americans' hardware be controlled / data escape and be monitored in China, or

2) that people in China subject to their laws (un-American as those laws may be) are being monitored (and worse)?

Because if it's the first topic, how do we not manage to buy/require/put in technical safeguards against our own people being monitored, or our equipment being taken over remotely? If we can't even do that, then how is any equipment we buy safe? But if we do, then is the argument that we're helping China get stronger by contributing to their economy or technological dominance? And that's undesirable to have a power shift that decreases our standing?

Who's responsible for deciding what standing we want to have in the world? Who's guiding that steering wheel and what's the destination? I daresay it's odd for the administration to be speaking up about this one thing, when it's mute on so many other factors that set our technological dominance.

Or if the 2nd argument, how far do our laws extend? Is that a principle to be applied to all countries by us, that they should not do things to their own citizens that would be illegal here? If we want universally respected laws to apply to other countries, I would think we could do ourselves a favor by respecting other laws and organizations that we currently choose to say are not in our convenience to follow.

Or is it something else? If you want me to be patriotic, tell me what I'm signing up for.
Why does a receiver on the football team let the other receiver catch a pass, when he could look better by blocking it?