skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
One of the big issues I always find with "Closed Lost Reasons"[1] like this is that it rarely captures the truth accurately. It misses the truth in a couple of ways:

1. Deliberate obfuscation by main actors who want to protect their jobs ("It is difficult to get a person to understand something, when their salary depends on their not understanding it.")

2. Continental drift- the farther you get from the action (or, more likely, the set of actions) that precipitated the event, the more you rely on memory and hearsay

3. "The Rage to Conclude"- humans LOVE denouement, to “know”, to have things wrapped up and make sense. But rarely is the world so simple. We try to boil a set of reasons down into one über-reason

So on the factory floor, the people doing the labeling are incentivized to shift the blame and obfuscate their role in the loss. And then the manager is trying to sort through all the noise to identify which set of reasons is the most likely for this loss. There's a lot lost in translation from the "truth" of how the deal was actually lost.

------------------

With this particular article, I categorize it in "content marketing babble": advice that is generalized to the point that it is not useful to me. The Common Lessons section leaves me with general advice but no tractable ways to understand what that looks like in the real world with real constraints and stresses.

IMO, the Lean: validation section could be extremely valuable IFF they supplied hard examples from the failed startup dataset that fueled this article. Like "Here are links to the case studies where the team behind [Closed Company A] felt that they could have spent more time validating before building. This is the featureset that they built prematurely, and here they ponder on ways they might have tested it cheaply"

------------------

All that aside:

I've actually been quite an avid reader of Failory for a couple of months now. I check in every so often to go over new interviews. I think the interviews (https://www.failory.com/interview-failure) are a lot more useful: the format allows for more nuance, more context over the conditions of the business, and more reflection.

I often find myself wanting to ask more questions in-line to the interviewee, kind of like a hyperspecific, morbid Quora question.

[1] I'm co-opting this term from Sales/Marketing lingo. I originally wrote Root Cause Analysis, but I know that RCA has a very specific software definition and set of rituals, so I wanted to
Airbnb Confidentially Files for IPO
The most frustrating challenges I've faced boil down to just cleaning the data. It's not too bad when everything is stable and you're just cleaning up a database, though this can still be pretty hard depending on the scale of the operations required. The worst is when I have a live data feed that is liable to occasionally mess up. In one instance I was reading in stock data from an API, and on their end they messed up and sent the same timestamp for two different instances, which caused my local data aggregation to merge them together into a series, and later when that value was actually queried, expecting a numpy float, it just crashed. So writing data processing code that's anticipatory of potential noise, with mechanisms to resolve it, or that sends errors early instead of finding them a week later by performing asserts on your assumptions are what I've done to face this.

I do agree with the general lack of feedback/improvement platforms, at least on the non-analysis side (I've seen good feedback on Kaggle forums before when it comes to questions on problem solving methodology.) I don't really follow the not finding value in data part though, in my experience it's pretty much a binary question like 'can I use this data I've found to solve my problem, or improve my solution', and if so it's valuable relative to that application.
I'm not a resident of California (rather, Minnesota), but I do want it to change. I don't use gig services because I think anyone doing 40[1] hours of work deserves a wage they can live off of, along all the other employment protections we've worked so hard to implement. Gig services are cheap because they don't meet that requirement. If gig services were required to meet that minimum wage and workers' rights, then I would be very happy to use them.

[1] Negotiable.
Wild, AI-generated film is the next step in “whole-movie puppetry”
Great work. Could you share a .svg version of it on GitHub?
Maybe commit to https://github.com/webmaxru/progressive-web-apps-logo
> Automatically write emails in your personal style by simply writing the key points you want to get across

> The days of spending hours a day emailing are over!!!

This is why I write grammatically incoherent emails and posts so that I can get GPT-3 to do it for me later. Has nothing to do with laziness, whimsy, or multitasking, honest!
Now do Amazon.
The article title suggests some sort of tension or comparison of "command line interfaces" vs "GUI interfaces".

It is not that at all.

The article seems more like a product sales pitch disguised as a tense "discussion" about an SSH client offering a new web based terminal.
Ok, but that still doesn't answer my question of what specifically SpaceX did differently. For instance, you said bigger temperatures are needed and that is limited by existing materials. So did SpaceX invent materials that could stand a higher temperature?
+1 for tipping culture. I just dont get it, why can employers pay their fair share, instead of expecting customers to foot the bill.
With how gig work is defined under prop 22 (pre AB5), its unfair. Look at the parent comment. Apparently these gig workers are insanely important, but they don't deserve health insurance (all of this is operating under the assumption that we won't get universal health care any time soon). People who are doing these gig jobs full time are destroying themselves (many work 60+ hours) doing a menial task with no benefits. That's not fair. My father for years worked a back breaking manual labor job and got excellent health benefits, reasonable hours, and flexible time off most of the year (not all of it though). All of this from a university that was always on the brink of collapse. He didn't make a great salary but there were other benefits. We cannot regress as a society where people are expected to work longer hours and do something more boring and dangerous (driving ain't safe, also sitting down all day is known to be bad) and expect people to not have benefits or a reasonable pay. Maybe you can't give them everything (reasonable pay + good benefits), but at least do one.

What should happen is there should be a UBI in place. Many people would stop being a ride sharing drivers and the people who want to be a driver for extra cash will be paid fairly because only the people who WANT to do it will do it, not the people who NEED to do it. Lyft and Uber and benefiting from how many people are in the second category. Its not Lyft's and Uber's job to fix societies inequities, but they shouldn't be allowed to exist solely on those people's backs.
ESBs historically required a domain-aware object model (when I saw them they were routed based upon rich types and terms like CORBA and RMI were still in vogue). This is more obvious when you look down the page for features in Apache Camel and they mention different data type support. Well, a workflow or orchestration engine doesn't need _any_ idea of your business layer data model to make decisions on where they need to be broadcast, but it's a convenience similar to listening to specific topics and segments in Kafka after querying a data broker service. Decoupling routing and representation of objects means that the bus is now dumb but the scheduler / router is now interchangeable. Which is how we can see so many possible competitors to Conductor and EBPM and all that now as shown in these comments.
Too bad. I guess they'll have to find some other way to make money outside of rent.
Nobody is suggesting the testing was random. The overall death rate and infection right could be either higher or lower, my only point is that you can't draw conclusions about the total population on a testing sample that wasn't random (and didn't try to be).
But Uber/Lyft have nothing to do with the job market being garbage.
If anything, they provide options to help ameliorate the situation.

Instead of the government playing court for something nobody wants, maybe they can do their job: set an an appropriate minimum wage, ensure better safety nets so people don’t need 3 jobs, provide better options to employers so jobs aren’t lost, etc.
Let me reverse that question.

What specific actions of NATO lead you to think that its ambitions for Russia in the 2010s differ from its ambitions for the USSR in the 1970s and 1980s?

What has changed since the Cold War, in those ambitions? What specific actions has NATO taken that make it clear that those ambitions have changed? What reassurance is Russia expected to see that encirclement, containment, and isolation is not the goal of the West? I can't see a single bloody one.

We're going down the exact same road again, the only difference is that the front line is now 300 miles further east. Which is very comforting for Czechs, and Hungarians but unfortunately, far less so for Ukranians.

(Oh, and to answer your question, I think 'US Army bases in Poland' is a pretty good, solid example of why Russia feels threatened. Had the War in Donbas not happened, as likely as not, we'd have been seeing US Army bases in Crimea today. It's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy, though. I advise that the best way to win for the buffer states is to either adopt neutrality, or, barring that, to not antagonize the side that's being backed into a corner.)
Not everyone has that choice, which is why so many people depend on gig economy jobs as their livelihood.

If you do not have in-demand skills for the market, have a family to feed, and the cost of training exceeds your expenses, Uber/Lyft might be one of your only job options.
I agree it could be improved, but it can only approach the minimum, which is somewhere near one small car per person. It's an absolutely massive chicken and egg problem. I doubt many people would be interested even if you told them their commute time would only double.

Even if you had private transportation to nearby public transportation hubs with rides that went greater distances with no/few stops, as a short term solution (similar to private FANG shuttles), you still have a distribution problem on the other side.
Those people stopped working because California's government prevented them from doing so. They're entitled to be compensated.
What? Every time I try to learn what a mortgage is it seems more like a scam. The only thing a bank should say to paying more is "thank you".
Could someone who has had experience with mainframes explain to me why, in 2020, if I were developing a brand new application with no backwards compatibility baggage, what scenarios in which I would want to choose a mainframe rather than a collection of off the shelf servers? Let's assume I have the financial capacity to run my own data center.

I'm legitimately curious. I already know how stupid reliable they are in terms of correctness guarantees and staying up when hardware failure and replacement occurs, but what truly sets them apart, considering their cost?

At least for we 20-something engineers, I'd wager that nearly all of us have never had an opportunity to be exposed to mainframes.
That survey has been thrown around a lot, but there are a lot of problems with it. A big issue is that the survey was explicitly of people who follow a specific website (and potentially align with that websites opinions).

Another is that once you explain that California allows flexible schedules even for employees a lot of people who say they want to stay independent contractors change their mind. The biggest thing that drivers want is flexibility in their schedules, and there's a lot of misinformation saying they'd be required by law to sign up for shifts if they were employers. Once you correct for this FUD and drivers realize their favorite part of being a contractor isn't at risk anymore the answer seem to shift quickly.

Even if it was true though- most people who work at sweat shops are happy to have the job because they need the money. That doesn't mean that it's right to allow crappy conditions for them.
https://www.usertrack.net

userTrack is mostly a self-hosted alternative to Google Analytics and Hotjar (heatmaps/session recordings). It also allows for easy A/B testing.

I am the author, ask me anything :)
I was referring to the Lyft post, not the parent comment...

I have edited the parent to make this easier to understand.
So can it go in the ocean?
We make choices within contexts other people create.
Unless you are entrepreneur with access to capital, I'm not sure how you can expect individuals to will a good employer into being if none is to be found. Using the government to create better conditions for the working class is a completely reasonable use of the political process.
That you don’t bat an eyelid at people needing a second or third job to make ends meet is in itself an indictment of the general state of the US.
Buses almost always run at less than 50% capacity, as people are going to or from school or work, but not both (i.e. morning rush is in the opposite direction of evening rush). The other unsolvable problems for buses is that they necessarily increase commute distance and time, as people must take a more indirect route to use buses (as opposed to individual transportation), and they are not flexible (i.e. they have limited peak capacity and fixed schedules).
sounds like you don't know any Uber/Lyft drivers
When people like you create social safety nets like unemployment without ever paying into the system, "what's appending" is that Uber and Lyft are paying for your moral grandstanding.

People shifting the costs of their moral choices to strangers should feel bad about themselves.
With some practice, things like this take between a couple of hours to a couple of days of investment, total. I would say it is a fair price to pay, whenin exchange you get to explore the design space, get to practice some important skills, and get a lot of control over how you want to do things, and get rid of a nasty dependency that might bite you later.

Of course, there are some things that you are not going to do that a solid library gets you for free.
not sure this is the best approach... everyone works differently and has various habits. i think it could work for some people but not me dude.
The quoted idea you are trying to defend in your article--explicitly, forcibly, and frankly even a bit condescendingly (via "a certain type of person") :(--is that Apple having a closed ecosystem was a necessary prerequisite to the iPhone's success, that removing this aspect of the product would destroy its value, and that it takes "a certain kind of person" to believe that the success of the iPhone somehow wasn't because of this closed up shop. You are trying to make this argument from a position of strength.

However, we have the most direct evidence possible for this assertion being false: the iPhone in fact had a "switch" (in the form of exploits for security holes that were packaged up as consumer-friendly tools to "jailbreak" the device) that let users do the strongest possible variant of what anyone talks about--allowing the user complete decision making over all of the software running on the device, not merely to install some banned apps--and not only did the world not end but somehow the iPhone was still a success.

We therefore know, without any trace of doubt, because it already happened, that if Apple didn't have centralized control over an App Store--and even if users were able to opt out of the sandbox, which notably isn't actually the argument being made by Epic! that is just something you threw in for dramatic effect and yet even still ignores the history ;P--that not only wouldn't the world end from user self-inflicted malware, but that the iPhone would still have been a success, because we actually saw this play out.

Now, you can make an entirely different argument that this freedom to install software from third parties should come from something other than a "security hole": I wouldn't disagree there, and neither would Epic! However, you aren't making that argument: you are arguing that the entire concept of undermining Apple's centralized control via their App Store is itself a security flaw and that if it didn't exist would have destroyed the iPhone's ability to succeed... which again, we know--without speculation--is false.

Or you could try to make a speculative argument that maybe the iPhone could still have been a success even if it had always been a locked down and closed ecosystem the way you want. I think that would be a difficult argument, and in fact I have already provided some seeds of the opposite argument: that if the platform in fact had been locked down the way you seem to think it had been, that it might not have been as much of a success as it was. This could be a fun argument, FWIW, but it again isn't the argument you are making.
I am scratching my head.

If we are parsing S-expressions... why not embed Scheme already? This way, not only you get an S-expression parser for 'free', you can easily manipulate S-expressions, you can add macros and so on. And you also get your scripting language out of this deal!

Something like Racket or Chicken (and possibly others) would work nicely. Chicken specifically has a very nice FFI - which you don't even have to use. As an experiment, I have asked Chicken's compiler to stop at the C code generation, added the generated code to my XCode project, and deployed the whole package to iPhone. Not even cross compilation shenanigans were required, since this was handled by XCode.

As a bonus*2, with a few lines of code, I opened a TCP listener, and fed straight to the REPL. Which meant that I could telnet and have a REPL, which could be used to replace functions on the fly and observe the results immediately, while the app was running.

They would have to rename the project at this point, though :)
Former Uber security chief charged with paying hush money to cover up 2016 hack
There was an ongoing FTC investigation into a S3 data breach from 2014. At around the same time they were trying to argue how very sophisticated their security practices now were after hiring Joe, this 2016 breach occurred, again from unprotected S3 data. Disclosing it would have obviously doomed the efforts to end the FTC investigation (escalated it in fact) and of course put his ongoing tenure as CSO in jeopardy.

So, no, this is just run of the mill executive cover-up. The only reason there is a federal charge here is because he lied to the FTC to make it happen.
There's an insane amount of outright bugs, jankiness, frameskipping, random framerate slowdowns, etc etc going on.

I recommend reading this thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/MicrosoftFlightSim/comments/ic3o90/... (read both by best and new)

And for the non-suckers who didn't buy the game yet: wait a few months. The shipped before actually making it work. I almost feel suckered because I paid $5 or so to re-activate my Xbox-PC-gamepass-or-whatever-they-call-it account so I could try it out.
I'm generally for more tech regulation, but I don't want to see Apple's position of power degraded. What may be needed is regulations to limit Apple's take, because 30% of a $2 app is fine in my eyes, but 30% of an app that goes for $50 is a bit much. To me it's the amount of work involved. Apple does more work for more complex apps, but it doesn't really scale with the investment involved.

I really don't want to go back to the days where I have to enter my credit card in some stupid payment form instead of just authenticating with face id.
Personal risk isn't an isolated thing. Thousands of people taking personal risk have systemic effects, and these companies aren't paying into it, even though everyone around these "risk-takers" suffer the consequences.
0 value may have been added to the game. A lot of value was added to the author.
This information is only useful if it is contrasted against the number of people who want/need/are able to work. People like the retired, teenagers, stay-at-home parents, college students, etc. all may make some small amount of income each year but generally speaking don't work full time. This isn't evidence of people struggling. It is evidence of people exercising their personal rights which include not being a worker.
Uber and lyft would still exist without unemployment so how do they depend on them?

If there was no unemployment insurance uber and lyft would still exist and saying that uber and lyft depend on these social safety nets is just dishonest rhetoric.
Are you concerned about third parties gaining access to your iPhone and installing software you don't want?
Does uber not charge per pickup and per mile? And they certainly do allow you to choose luxury vehicles. Maybe I'm missing the distinction you're trying to draw.

But either way that's irrelevant to the general point of whether Uber's general business model is that of a black-car taxi service.

The feature set doesn't have to match exactly to demonstrate that taxi service will not vanish instantly from California if Uber decides to leave - taxis existed before Uber and they will exist after.

Uber could increase fares and continue operating if they choose. If they decide it's not worth their time, c'est la vie, there will be others who fill this niche instead.

This is just a transparent ploy to use the employees as leverage to reduce their operating costs, they will actually continue operating here even if it passes.
Yes, good question.

We need anonymous, decentralized cryptocoin-like peer-to-peer service system with crowdsourced rating for every vertical that would allow such system to evolve and prosper outside of this political nonsense.
Killing lots of innocent people in lots of places for no discernible reason would only be "leadership" if one thereby inspired others to do the same thing. Fortunately that hasn't happened yet...
Ideally the temporary array should optimise away.
The causality is certainly confusing and not clear cut. It does seem that these small towns are in desperate need of liberal economic policies yet they vote the opposite. Rural areas need investment in education, infrastructure, and job retraining. If you turned Republican towns blue, you'd almost certainly help their cause.
Right here: https://sfbay.craigslist.org/search/jjj
The problem is that they put everyone lives at risk. It doesn't matter how convinced you are of your abilities if your life and the life of others is at immediate risk (like in a plane or on a bus)
When there is a forest fire going on? If your AQI is at 800 because a forest fire is raging nearby, driving less isn't going to change that number at all. You simply have bigger problems than auto exhaust at that point.
Ask HN: How do you increase the pagespeed of your site?
How are we not paying into the social safety net? That's literally what we as individuals pay for with taxes.
Maybe add an alias to Max called AtLeast and one for Min called AtMost to be used in these situations ;)