skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Tesla as a company values growth over delivering the best quality product.

I hope it works better for them and their clients than it worked for Boeing and the 737 MAX operators and passengers...
>The white one has a bit of Dieter Rams in it.

Thought the exact same thing. I am a huge fan of the Xbox designs. The white one specifically reminds me of an upright Dieter Rams designed Braun turntable [1].

...and as I finish typing the section above I find this [2]. Looks like someone else already had the idea.

[1] https://musicologistblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/braun-p...
[2] https://au.phaidon.com/agenda/design/articles/2020/september...
Sure, and when that happened, did people say "oh, that's to be expected, sometimes cars do this sort of thing" or did they say "this is completely unacceptable and must be fixed immediately"?

Tesla gets held to a separate standard, and excuses get made for it, because people want it to succeed. I want it to succeed, too, but my definition of success includes making reliable cars. (And preferably sacking Elon Musk, but that's unrelated.)
What could a technology company bring? Intentionally broken software? When I buy a coffee maker it has one job: make coffee. When I buy a car I want it to move me over the road. Sure there's software but it's a lot of embedded/DSP/controll stuff. Tesla can do a lot more of the value-add/infotainment crap but most people don't like that.
Tech workers are in so much demand that they don't really suffer such a disparity of negotiating power, like workers in other industries.

How do we test this hypothesis? Do we know that tech companies couldn't afford to double the wages of all their staff, or is that an assumption we've made based on high wages relative to other industries?

I imagine the likes of Apple could certainly pay their devs a lot more.
Firefox on Archlinux. Both things also happen with Chromium. The text cursor moves to below the prompt at window width ~779px and below.
Well there you go, I think I have an idea and someone is 10 steps ahead of me! Glad to see it!
That's why as a non-native I'm glad I have a native girlfriend who's also an English teacher. She definitely corrects me, especially about pronunciation, and I'm grateful for that, because I can see improvements I didn't think I needed.
Have you tried a samba share or an NFS export?
> The semantics of an API may (although I would argue otherwise) be protected, but if they are it would have to be either as a design patent, or as trade dress, not as copyright.

Wouldn't semantics be functional and thus require a utility patent, rather than a design patent or trade dress?
Pest, Elegant PHP Testing Framework
In this specific case only three other companies make web browsers with significant market share (Mozilla, Apple, Microsoft), so I guess you could argue only those three companies could have done this particular thing and you're correct that only Google owns Youtube.

But more generally companies have written up IETF paperwork for other protocols. Lots of Microsoft protocols have RFCs for example. But one thing that's less common is actually engaging with full-blown IETF working group standards development like Google did here, as opposed to just saying "Look here's the protocol we built, you can use that, or not". The IETF is totally happy to accept what I guess you could call a "donation" of that sort, and it's much less effort. Maybe you take some internal documents, you reassemble them into the rough shape of an RFC, you publish that draft, you get a bunch of feedback about that document, focused on clarifying the explanation, making sure you cover everything required, and so on rather than altering the protocol (which you've maybe already actually shipped in a product) and after maybe 6-12 months you've got a polished RFC ready to publish.

If you use a work VPN for example, or a corporate WiFi network that's not just a few home WiFi routers with a more professional SSID and password, you probably end up using protocols Microsoft "donated" in this way, like PEAPv0/EAP-MSCHAPv2 - these protocols are awful but there was no multi-step process where other vendors improve on it and then they eventually reach consensus and publish. Microsoft shipped products that do MSCHAPv1, then wrote it up so that other products could interoperate with Windows, and when they made MSCHAPv2 they followed the same path.
>If he opens a door randomly, and gets a goat, you don't modify your likelihood at all by switching.

At best, that was intended as a red herring to make the correct solution less obvious. It was not intended as an alternate correct answer. It's not how the game ever worked.

The initial version of the question said he opens a goat door. Whether he knew it would be a goat door or not is slightly irrelevant, because your odds of being right the first time were 1/3. As far as the premise of the thought experiment, a goat door always gets opened, either through peaking, premonition, or consistent luck.

>Saying 1 door or 2 doors doesn't mean you actually grasp the entirety of the problem.

I disagree, and if you don't see it as that simple, you are falling for the trap that makes the question fun.
I guess rules will be changed, too, but some pro footballers also are fairly good actors, and can intentionally place their arms in the ball’s trajectory so that it looks unintentionally (one way to get there is by not moving it out of the way)

What surprises me is that, for the VAR, they didn’t do what was done in other sports (tennis, field hockey, cricket): only review actions on request by a team (or the referees), and give each team a limited number of times their requests can be rejected.

IIRC, American football has that now, too, after a period in which about every play got reviewed.
Friends of mine who moved to the US as teens have what I would call off-native. Their mastery is definitely native-level but their accent is a bit odd. You might wonder if their accent is just an American one you haven't heard before. A good example of this level of English proficiency is YongYea on YouTube.
>Maybe I'm privileged to have had this option

You are privileged, and I definitely am too. But a simple, extreme, counterfactual works to demonstrate that many do not get this option: Picture a working mother with three children to feed and lives week-to-week with no opportunity to gain new skills. Her only option is going to be to work literally whatever appears. I suspect similar applies to most people who appear to be middle class as well.
$403k per employee.

https://www.digitalinformationworld.com/2020/08/research-rev...

Not just their devs, but all of their workers.
Best suggestion of the whole thread!
Optional addition of the posters face in the picture would make it even harder to fake (see for instance TIL Threads on Reddit).
> This suggests to me that they're more in favor of Google's position, and are querying how to arrive at that decision from a legal basis.

I wouldn't read that much into it. Google has made the argument that "this means doom-and-gloom" and Oracle that "this is technically illegal". It makes sense that they're interrogating the parties along the lines of the arguments that have been presented. I wouldn't say it's a signal that they favor one over the other.
Perhaps it's more likely if you are in a deep relationship with a native speaker, since often that's a reason why people want to learn a language.

This is sort of a plug, but I just started a new project to help couples to learn each other's languages (https://learncoupling.com). Since my wife is Chinese herself, and I've been learning Chinese for quite a while. Most couples around me have tried and failed to learn each other's language as well since they expect each other to be their sole on-demand language teacher.

For me, I think it works if I do mostly self-study with Anki. We schedule a certain time of day for like 5 or 10 minutes where I'm just running through my flashcards and my wife can correct me or clarify things. And if the corrections can asynchronous through an app, it'd feel less awkward as you say.
Unions in the US have a very specific legally-mandated structure.

In the US, unions are required to represent a legally-defined "unit". Generally this constitutes a group of workers with a well-defined role (e.g. line workers in a factory, butchers in a supermarket, graduate students in the UC system, teachers in California, etc.). When such a unit wishes to unionize, the members in the unit vote whether to establish a union. Assuming a sufficient number vote in favor, a union is formed that becomes the sole, exclusive, permanent (until dissolution) representative of all members of the unit during contract negotiations. This means that all members of the unit, including non-union members, are represented by the union for contract negotiations and it is illegal for anybody else, including yourself, to negotiate on your behalf (technically it is illegal for the business to negotiate with anybody other than the union, but this is functionally the same thing since any such agreement would be non-binding and then they would get fined for no benefit). In addition, no other union can legally be created that can represent any members of the unit. The only way to get different representation in such cases is to either dissolve the existing union or to vote out the leadership.
Look on this board. The person who corrects breaks to brakes, loose to lose, etc. is going to be viewed as at least mildly pedantic. Granted, people make mistakes typing they wouldn't make speaking but the principle is at least similar.
The usefulness of having a greeter to limit shoplifting has been reduced drastically as many stores have implemented policies where regular employees are prohibited from preventing a shoplifter from leaving, due to liability issues if the employee gets injured in an altercation. This has led to a situation where shoplifters would brazenly walk out of the store with armful of merchandise, knowing that they won't be stopped.
It helps remind you to stand up and drink water every other week.
If I connect to a server via https and see it's certificate, I am confident that my communication is secure between me and the server hosting that certificate.

To validate the person holding that certificate is who they claim to be, how can I do that? By either getting their certificate out of band (impractical), or trusting an intermediate.

Lets encrypt doesn't make it any easier or harder to get an invalid certificate.

Now if the server wants me to authenticate, https has that built in. I can present my own client certificate, and if it's signed by somewhere the server trusts, it knows who I am. But how would a random server authenticate who I am? I'd personally rather use certificates or ssh keys or similar than usernames and passwords, but that's too complex for the average person.

Clearly I could have lost control over the key to my certificate, or the server could have lost theirs, there's not much you can do about that, no matter what type of authentication system you use.
Git supports a number of transfer protocols[0]. There's no requirement to support SSH in order to implement pulling from generic repos.

[0]: https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Git-on-the-Server-The-Protoco...
Yes, precisely. Even my local (definitely not very high-tech) fish-and-chip shop can manage to print a number at the top of the receipt, and then call that number out when your food is ready.

Starbucks ask you for a name to make the process seem more personal and friendly. Apparently they started doing this in 2012; it was met with quite some head-scratching in the UK at the time. The other big coffee chains here do not do this, to the best of my knowledge.
It handles congestion control slightly differently since it can estimate the Round Trip Time more accurately, but it’s essentially the same ACK based mechanism that TCP uses. The current draft [0] from the QUIC working group basically describes TCP NewReno (the authors say so themselves).

[0] https://quicwg.org/base-drafts/draft-ietf-quic-recovery.html
Implementing Lambda Edge Functions in Terraform
This blog post aims to show that not only are making Lambda@Edge functions in Terraform possible, but that it can actually be a pleasant experience.
You don't need night vision when headlights are visible in the opposite lane. You'll appreciate it when you are driving on a dark road on a moonless or overcast night.
How do you mean that? (Sorry, I'm not a native English speaker, don't understand the sentence.)
It's getting pretty dated. For example, some full size trucks now get better fuel economy.

Basically, Toyota has been too afraid to touch it (lest kill the golden goose) for approaching twenty years.
Based on the volume of posts here which seem to expect otherwise, it seems a lot of people don't understand what the secondary effects of this are.
IBM open-sources AI for optimizing satellite communications
Unless the first marriage is viewed as invalid in the second jurisdiction (which simply occurring in another jurisdiction usually won't do), or the second jurisdiction allows polygamy (in which case, it doesn't need to be a separate jurisdiction, anyway), that generally is insufficient.
last 50 years of change includes modern nail guns, engineered lumber, hurricane anchors, plywood roof sheathing, vapor barriers, and countless other differences in how homes are built and the tools we use to do it. There is nothing special about software, other industries also evolve and grow their methods and tools. We just change software with reckless abandon and little regard for the reasons we started down any given path in the first place.
Dependent types are able to express the constraints that prevent or catch this error.

The types of the arguments to the function can have value constraints on it, and those constraints can be determined from a value that exists there: the name of the function.
I mean, whether it’s deterministic is really hard. We’re talking about extensions of quantum field theory and there have existed both deterministic and nondeterministic accounts of quantum mechanics, the deterministic ones generally lagging the nondeterministic ones substantially.

But whether it’s _exactly the same_, I think Penrose would say that they are _almost never_ the same. The question would be whether the Big Bang of this universe is perfectly mirrored in its final state and I think Penrose would say “well all the stuff that happened in the middle probably had some sort of effect on how the thing ended up.” So if we are seeing the black holes of some other universe’s death writ large on our cosmic microwave background, then I can’t imagine our black holes will eventually look exactly the same, will they? (Keep in mind, I’ve only met Penrose once and I embarrassed myself thoroughly at the time, so my guesses about what he would say are terribly terribly weak predictions.)

But maybe they will be the same. I talk a lot on HN about the impact of fixed-point theorems on US politics, but they would also apply here. If the universe has an infinite number of sequences one might expect that it starts to converge on a situation where the black-hole-patterns in are the same as the black-hole-patterns out. Now if that happened one might imagine that, if that fixed point supports life, then there is an infinite replay of nearly-identical life experiences across the many many eons of universe, and then if we treat our existence as “choose a conscious person across the eons to be” we would almost surely randomly choose someone in the oft-repeated universe. And so yes, we would be very likely to say that our universe's end would lead to another universe wherein the exact same people living out the exact same lives having the exact same discussion on Hacker News, haha.

I am a Christian and so these sorts of things are a sort of idle speculation, a joke to laugh at rather than something to inform today’s experience, a slacking-off between meetings rather than a contribution of deep value. But it’s certainly fun and funny to think about.
for one how do you know if your being paid fairly appraisal systems are fair (recall Microsoft sack ranking).

And I know for a fact that there will be discrimination on grounds of age, sex, race and disability based on experience in the uk tech industry.

There's also the issue of representation at grievance and discipline hearings.
Also mazda[0] who some are saying of whom Honda is actually following the lead[1]

[0] https://www.motorbiscuit.com/why-is-mazda-removing-all-touch...

[1] https://jalopnik.com/honda-follows-mazda-by-ditching-some-to...
It's probably because I'm just a poor, unsophisticated non-SV type, but I never thought I was out of 'startup' phase in the consulting biz until I got my first invoice paid. But even if 'startup' is the hours or days between quitting your day job and hanging out your shingle, I don't see how it invalidates anything I said.
Meanwhile, in the real world...

As an early Linux user, I still remember running a Windows VM with IE installed, for years, just to do online banking. Heck, at my current corporate job all the Mac users (mostly the web designers) are given VMs to run IE11 to fill out their timecards, and use product management software. This is absurd, but real.

I'm no stranger to having to use VMs to do basic stuff online, but not everyone else is. And, to be honest, no one should have to set up a VM to use a browser they cannot trust, just to protect themselves from stupid drive-by malware.
You fear all of that, as if tomorrow a tech industry union could spring up fully formed, an IWW out of Big Bill Haywood's forehead. Yes, unions are imperfect and American unions often especially so. But why be limited by past history? Why couldn't a new union based in a comparatively young industry write new rules and determine new practices? Why be limited by the problems of the past? That's what is so puzzling about tech critics of labor unions; if we think we can innovate upon and disrupt every other damn thing, why do we also insist that labor unions will inherently experience the same set of problems? And if labor unions are so bad, why not at least propose something new that could address the problems that they were intended to solve?
I don't think that's the same thing. Yes, people do pester others to determine their country of origin, but it's already plainly obvious that the answer is "foreign", or more realistically, "not white". India or Pakistan? Probably doesn't matter for the purposes of internal bias forming.

The dialogue being discussed here is about a trait which is not externally evident. It's also a direct question. Where are you really from is more or less directly asking country of origin pre-family immigration however far back that is, which would equate to outright asking someone what their caste is.
So... I can see why these ought to be styleable, but what are the uses for this apart from the cute ones on this page?

Is there a usability or accessibility problem with markers that can now be addressed?

Are we mostly going to see this used to make the markers match the site styling? Perhaps for better emphasis?
Oh I see. Then we are agreeing :)
For me, the answer is dispiriting: Photoshop and Illustrator.

There is no other way to have a standard Linux distro and Photoshop on the same workstation without some far out hacks.
It's also possible that Monty only gives you the option to switch if you chose the car. Or only if you chose door No 1. All of which affect the answer. Therefore, it must be made fully explicit what Monty can and cannot do.
yeah, and we're 70% water...
> the world’s first independently developed supersonic jet

Nope: https://www.jimbede.com/bd--10.html
Personally, I am waiting until Tesla's competition gets their act together and starts producing more EVs. Mercedes and Volkswagen are both moving in that direction, for instance. I think in the next 5-10 years there will be plenty of EVs on the market in most countries, and Tesla will no longer stand out simply because they were first.

I drive a Subaru now. If I could get an EV version of my present car with comparable range, I'd buy it today and never look back. They say by 2035 they'll have electric versions of all their major models[1], so I guess... sometime in the next 15 years, for me?

[1] https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a30613610/subaru-crossover...
Seems like a more accurate title for this group, then, would be "core maintainers" — or even "board of trustees."
Audio Watermarking Systems [pdf]
Try thinking of it this way. It may or may not be any more useful. I've seen different people come to understand the problem from different examples.

1. Observe that 3/3 = 1. Pedantic, yes, but good for frame of mind here.
2. Pick one of three doors. (1/3 odds)
3. Gain information that one of the three doors is a loser.
4. Note your odds on choosing the original door correctly are still 1/3.
5. Note that if you change doors, there are still 2/3 doors there to choose.
5. Note you're not going to switch to the known loser door, so if you change doors you know 100% which of the other 2/3 of doors to choose.

The intuition usually is that you're down to two doors after the loser door is opened, but that's not the case. There are still three doors. The host has just told you that if you trade doors, you know which door to trade for. So trade for it.

Note there's a newer version of "Let's Make a Deal", hosted by Wayne Brady, but there is no option to switch after a losing door has been shown in that version.
Aren't you expected to be fake happy in all portions of American culture? I am American so cannot meaningfully comment on other cultures, but it I suppose it could be true for every culture as well.

People just like being around happy people.
Not only this, but play talk seems “silly” to adults and is not widely seen as acceptable.

Trying to learn new vocabulary during a hearing or negotiation just isn’t going to happen.

I recall being overseas and hanging out with 1st and second graders and none of us had any shame just asking “what is this?!” And pointing at a rock or a tree or a ball and correcting each other. I learned more practical vocab in a few hours from a 6yr old than from studying in a book over a week.
Not very much money (read: almost 0). If you get scooped you might be out of a job.

"Academic politics is the most vicious and bitter form of politics, because the stakes are so low." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayre%27s_law
When I took an astronomy class in college, we'd have "night" class on the roof, with telescopes, and star maps.

We were instructed to bring flashlights, but cover the lens with a red layer, to keep the pupils from closing too much, so we could both look at stars but read our star charts.

The headlights in the other lane don't disqualify the benefits of using red lighting inside the car.
Although fatality estimates are important for understanding the risk of viral spread to people in different age groups, they don’t tell the full story of the toll COVID-19 takes, says Kilpatrick. “There is a fascination with death, but COVID-19 appears to cause a substantial amount of long-term illness,” he adds.
This is exactly why it's important that they publish their figures - so you can make a decision if it's works for you after weighing the tradeoffs. For high-traffic properties (Google, CDNs, Netflix), 3% can easily translate to millions of dollars saved - they could hire an entire team just to deal with the HTTP complications.
If you include hardware in CS, no, caching is older. If you don't, I'm not sure.
I disagree, there are many ways to solve this problem. for example

.company.staff | .pets | flatten | filter .type == "cat" | print(.name + " belongs to " + ..name)
> governments should run the economy like a housewife runs her household budget.

This is such a bad way to think about the economy, and cited as such so often, that I'd started to think of it as a strawman. Housewives don't print their own currencies.