skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Same problem every development team has. Who setup up the CI server? Who setup the front-end proxy? Who configured the AWS setup? Everything needs redundancy.

Sure, so all those things should be owned by a team rather than an individual. But that makes the whole "When a container/vm would run out of memory, we all didn't have to scramble to figure out who broke something. The person who owned the code for that service dealt with it. If a service started kicking out errors nobody but the owner had to be distracted." kind of pointless; the whole team should know about the service and be aware of any recent changes to it, and everyone should be able to debug it.

> I disagree that external services are hard to interface to. They are hard to work with when they are buggy, but if they hit the specs, they generally are not an issue.

Well of course programming is easy as long as there are no bugs! But the most important and hardest part of programming is debugging, and every time you hit a service boundary you have to figure out which side of it the bug lies on; that ends up being a significant amount of work. Practically speaking you need to implement a stub version of the service for testing with, monitoring that can confirm whether that service is up and running, maybe some kind of tracing/replay that lets you track specific problematic requests... and that's even more work for internal services, for something like S3 at least some of the bits and pieces for doing that have been built already.

> Because of the loose coupling, things were very extensible and easy to modify.

Absolutely, but you don't need a network boundary to achieve that. (I mean, maybe you do in Python because it has no visibility rules/enforcement and incredibly poor dependency management, but that's not a general problem).

> You conveniently left out "or branch".

Different commits on the same branch can be just as different as different branches. You can't have it both ways, either you keep all your services in lockstep which means you have to restart everything to fix a bug, or you have to worry about different services being on different versions. (Actually, since you normally can't restart a group of microservices atomically, you have to worry about version compatibility even if you try to always deploy new versions of everything together, IME).

> Listen, I am not trying to sell anything, I don't care what you think. I am just sharing my teams experience. It was overwhelmingly positive using services to build a complex system with real revenue from Fortune 100 customers for almost a decade.

Your post sounds like a salesperson/cultist with the "not a single engineer that ever voiced a concern over how things worked" emphasis. I've worked in multiple microservice-oriented environments including those that claimed success for microservices, and they've all either had the same problems I'm talking about, or actually not been talking about microservices but rather reasonably sized services (i.e. having teams - groups of ~10 people who worked together and had standups together - maintain one or two services each).
This sounds like an appropriate test for equipment deployed into large areas of Africa, Central Asia and the Middle East where T-Mobile/Sprint don't operate.
I don't see why you read a comment saying that it's perfectly fine to look at negatives especially as the relate to the specific story and then want to imply someone is saying we drop all negative criticism.

-

At the end of the day this feels like such a HN thread. A story can't just be a moment feel good?

It has to be reinforcing systematic injustice or a looking glass for how terrible so many have it?

It can't just be something that makes you go "huh, neat, good for him" and you move on with life?"

Again, I'm not saying it has to be that, I once again reiterate it's fine to look deeper and for negatives, just maybe actually keep it relative to the story... but just "accepting the bait" as it were...

Would it really be so terrible if all someone got out of it was a moment of a smile rather than some grand philosophical prototypical mind twisting that defines a story?

Stories don't have some sort of "answer" there's no singular reason why they all exist.
The submission is a memoir of my first encounters with web. I'm happy to respond to any comments or questions.

For me, with every anniversary of the web's creation, the contrast between the original vision and the web as it exists now is thrown into sharper relief.
Man, I definitely wouldn't want to be a customer at that bank!
Remember it was initially implemented to support giving lectures to tens of students, who may join late or leave early. Having to teach remotely, let's try to at least not reproduce the annoyance of the physical world with the noise of the classroom's door ;-)

(I agree that an optional sound would be nice.)
How to launch a tech career in 2021
Palantir was supposed to be a quiet little listing. The big institutions wanted to accumulate it at rock bottom prices before it's eventual rise into triple digits but the general public has caught on and it's getting pumped up.

Disclaimer: I bought 2500 shares at $11 and am up well over 150%.
>Ignoring all the other social/anticompetitive issues there is with Facebook proposing this, it stinks like a scam to get a tax writeoff or jump onto the same sort of FCC rural internet grant money Starlink is bilking taxpayers out of. You can't scale a midband macro like this even using a dumb amount of spectrum. Oh totally forgot, there's an 'educational' use case for use of BRS (2500mhz) spectrum that I'll bet Facebook will also try to get their hands on.

Is it very clear that this pessimism/cynicism is warranted?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzXZdipxCuw
Loss, Compassion, and Leaving AWS
It uses long polling over http. To be clear it's not restful http, but it's not websockets. I believe that Chris doesn't believe it's important for most people so there are no directions right now. Could be wrong there, I'm not Chris.

Page changes are still initiated by the client in LiveView (although can be server initiated)

LiveView is just channels under the hood. Once you consider that, long polling may seem more obvious
Dunno. A possible set of steps:

1) Being able to connect and discuss openly.

Probably the largest community mailing list at MIT -- the ancient csail-related mailing list, whose roots date back to the AI Lab days is gone after a thread titled "What is CSAIL's stance on Marvin Minsky?" (Minsky was on Epstein's island once, and one of the Epstein girls was pressured to offer herself; by Minsky's wife's account, he didn't take her up on it). MIT killed the whole list -- probably a half-century old community mailing list with thousands of people. I'm not sure how to recover from that.

Keep in mind that MIT emails were also mined for evidence to cover up (also not a secret; just a buried open fact -- part of the "Factfinding" process was finding evidence and getting ahead of it, and MIT was straightforward that MIT private emails were now under surveillance -- and I presume they're still monitoring). I'm not sure how nasty MIT will get if people start organizing. Higher-ups are well-connected.

2) Letting folks know what's up.

Keep in mind that a lot of the MIT community trusts the administration implicitly. A lot of school pride. And public evidence is mixed.

3) Reform.

Ideally, across elite schools. These issues aren't unique to MIT. MIT is a leader in corruption, as it is in so many areas, but other schools are neck-and-neck, and others will follow. Working to block funding, pending transparency reforms. No more NDAs and non-disparage agreements. Make universities subject to FOIA-style requests. Implement open governance measures. Etc. Ideally, that would go for alumni donations, government grants, and foundation funding.

4) Providing a face-saving out.

Sad to say, lots of people at MIT illicitly made millions of dollars. They're powerful and connected. A direct fight is unlikely to be successful. They're less likely to block reforms they feel less threatened by.

Whether the future is dim or bright is hard to say. MIT has a massive endowment, and professors are very comfortable. My major concern is that we need an MIT-classic: a pre-brand-obsessed, low-key institute where nerds can nerd, build need things, do credible science, etc. Ideally, that'd be MIT again, post-reform. Less ideally, we'd take another institute and run with it. If all alumni donations went somewhere new, that'd be an option too: pick a school, and pending transparency and anti-corruption checks-and-balances, build it up.

But I don't really know if that would do it, or if that's reasonable. Thoughts?
it's not a debate if they refuse to look at evidence in a scientific and neutral light. Instead, it's a propaganda fight.
I think you’re overstating what this “secret software does.”

Those organizations are willing to invest money into software that makes them better at what they do. It’s not magic, it’s not secret. It’s just that at large organizations, it’s easier to justify writing pieces of software that have seemingly-small impact because that total impact is so large at their scale.
> We fear he may not have focus for a long time for work

Maybe take a different approach and give structure to what he already does naturally instead of trying to force a more typical academic or professional life. You say he likes legos; think "lego artist" or "lego youtube channel" versus software developer. Or maybe there are other interests that he takes to naturally that have far more potential but are overlooked due to being unconventional.
Unpredictability is probably dangerous.

If an alliance is credible, then it's a solid deterrent.

The alliances in 1914 was less credible than NATO. Many were secret, as was mobilization plans and implications of such plans. It's my impression that the list of things triggered WWI is very long :)
I didnt see html, just ruby bindings. Anyone can make easy bindinds on server but it costs flexibility on components, imagine for deep nested levels customized components and syncing.
Global load balancing for Kubernetes with Mysocket.io
Google webcache: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:kTLuLpr...
Best revenge would be to shut down the effing website and watch the other one go up in flames as non tech guy won't know how to switch it on. JK

This is very unsound and simp like advice. He has built it. If anyone walks away it is the other guy and not him
https://youtu.be/yDdnTR7mqKs
I assume nobody would want to insure such a large and unknown risk...

You're kidding, right? With billionaires, publicly traded corporations, hedge funds and insurance companies investing in bitcoin (or using it as their treasury), there's a whole new crypto financial industry emerging.

For example, Knox: https://www.knoxcustody.com

Bitcoin custody that is insured to the full value of
holdings for the risk of theft and loss, including
collusion.
I wonder how you would collect that data.
I love the meanings of words. I had a rather long exchange with someone on here a few weeks ago about the difference between "theft" and "robbery".

In this case though, the meaning is kinda academic. If you don't get a job or an apartment because of unfair bias, would it make you feel better that it was due to negative stereotypes about your nationality or sex, rather than negative stereotypes about people with your skin color? They're all equally unfair and the outcome is equally negative for you.

Bigotry based on any immutable characteristic is equally bad. Ok someone used the wrong label for the specific type of bigotry, so what? Especially in this case, we don't have a good word for bias based on nationality or national origin ("xenophobia"? but what if they're a dual-citizen or citizen of your country? "ethnophobia"? you get my point) We know what they meant, so move on and talk about the bigotry instead of the dictionary. That's why saying "X isn't a race, so it's not 'racism'" is pointless in this context.
It's a racket, for certain.

The story as it goes is that they need big investors to soak up a lot of the IPO so that they all sell. The brokerages cultivate a set of people who can pony up that money, and part of that cultivation is a history of good (profitable) interactions.

Thinking Fast and Slow asserts that humans use a different weighting system for upside and downside (making $10 does not feel as good as losing $10 feels bad), but it also asserts that people who look at finances and statistics for a living have a bunch less pronounced bias in this respect.

In the same way that it's worth some guy's time to climb into my tree for $250 bucks, and worth $250 to me to not have to make that climb, the investment houses should be profiting off of the difference between my speculative sense of risk in the situation versus their objective sense of risk based on expertise.

But that doesn't seem to be what happens with IPOs. It feels more like an Old Boys' Club, full of people who are as averse to loss as I am, maybe even moreso, demanding an experience that ranges from good to fantastical, instead of fair to excellent.

The good news is, that gap means there's space for competition. The bad news is that many of the people who might participate seem to be more motivated to stretch enough to get an invite to The Club instead. Someone is going to have to defect. A lot of someones...
It's easily explained by accepting that the IPO price is a guess in the first place, and that the negative publicly of guessing wrong and having a significant IPO decrease is more professionally embarrassing than having an increase.
Stay on and fight. If anyone has to walk away it is the other guy. Believe me. Lawyer up and fight it out
No. The co-founder is not coming into this negotiation seeking an agreement amenable to all parties, but rather to get their way. They are a hard bargainer (in the sense that they are attempting to push the needle as much to their side as they can, rather than find something equitable). They are the person coming in to the yard sale, seeing the sign that says "$5", and saying "I'll give you 30 cents for it".

You don't move the needle back by being kind and compassionate with those sorts of people. You move it back by using whatever leverage you have. We don't know what leverage the OP has, but his only defense is to use it to either trigger a real buyout, to get the other investor on his side, to risk tanking the company, to say "no" in the belief the co-founder won't tank the company in response, or some other option we're unaware of.

In the same way you won't make headway trying to explain to that lowballer at the yard sale why $5 is more than fair, you won't make any headway trying to explain to someone who has come out of the gate with something so starkly unfair as the OP presents why their proposal is unfair. They know.
Not to be confused with Ripple, a fortified wine cooler sold by Ernest & Julio Gallo, and made famous by Sanford & Son.
Yeah, spend the money and a good lawyer. The 1000bucks I spend on a lawyer to send a you suing the wrong person letter to a company that’s now worth over trillion was the best money spend.
1% of the entire US population.

Fucking thanks, Magas.
This would be a great step, but an even better step would be ending the centralized gatekeeping of securities-related investment contracts, and respecting the right of grown adults to freely contract with each other.

A recent study on the ICO market on Ethereum found:

"The average ICO has almost 4700 contributors. The median contributor invests a relatively small amount. The ICO market appears to have successfully given access to the financing of innovation to a new class of investors, which is a long-standing public policy issue" [1]

People having the freedom to contract is true accessibility.

[1] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11408-020-00366-0...
Heh! Facts are always relevant when you are debating in good faith. People who find facts not supporting their beliefs argue dishonesty that doesn't mean facts are not relevant.
Working hard is a tool. A tool that may or may not be the right tool to use in a given situation. The problem with working hard is that it will burn you out long term. So be careful (and think long term/strategically) before you do it.
Thanks for this. I thought either my music history was off by a century, or the Nazi party started way earlier than I thought.
Don't get me wrong, I rather agree with you on the conceptual side of things; I just wish there was a pretty syntax to do it practically.

As you mention them, pipes, for instance, get close to that, and e.g. Elixir uses them to a great result. However, it requires unambiguous priority of the arguments and cooperation & discipline from the librairies authors, so that piping follow the intuitive (and hopefully unambiguous) understanding of the data flow.
Interesting ... which leads to a different question. If wealth or resources severely decrease, might people conclude that a lot of furniture is optimally-enough placed where it is, and shift to selling, buying and renting mostly-furnished units?
>This is why in urban areas it usually makes more sense to use cell network to save battery

Hmm. Rhen why does Apple recommend using WiFi for power saving?

“When you use your device to access data, a Wi‑Fi connection uses less power than a cellular network”

https://www.apple.com/batteries/maximizing-performance/
Bill talks about issues with traditional IPOs here [0] under _DOOR #1: THE STRUCTURALLY BROKEN IPO PROCESS_. Worth a read.

0: http://abovethecrowd.com/2020/08/23/going-public-circa-2020-...
Less of you means less of them too
I really like this analysis! Given this hypothetical income growth, what would the distribution of wealth look like today?

As far as I know, the distribution of wealth is even more skewed in favour of the rich, with some fraction of people at the bottom having 'negative wealth' i.e. more debts than assets. Wealth also seems to have a compounding effect, in that richer people have a higher savings rate and access to better investment opportunities. So would more equal income growth necessarily lead to a more equal wealth distribution, or are there other factors to account for?
> But the 2020 numbers amount to a jump of about 15%, and could go higher once all the deaths from this month are counted.

Not all of that 1% are attributed to COVID. It is still terrible, but one cannot blame the Trumpers for all of the deaths.
The answer, like most things in life, lies in between.

Yes, in an ideal world you "price it right" and on IPO day the stock doesnt move up or down from the opening price.

Optically, it looks a lot better to price low and have the stock rise.

Additionally, there is something called an over-allotment option (aka greenshoe) that allows banks to sell more shares than initially allotted, to help stabilize the IPO price. This is usually more $ for the banks.
NFL Week 16 – Christmas came Early
A lot goes into starting a company, not just tech. We don’t know who contributed what and how much. And I say this as a technical founder.
That's how I read the title; that's what I'm going with.
Other thread seems to agree that the modern version of Ripple, the version being sued by the SEC and the version of XRP that cryptocurrency speculators have been trading, is problematic.

No one is really disagreeing that Ripple was something else entirely before it became the popular Ripple/XRP scam, but that doesn't really matter in the context of this SEC lawsuit.
Semi-feral dogs perhaps. In many parts of the world one must be cautious about the street dogs, especially if they pack up as they can be unpredictable and quite dangerous to individual humans.
I started looking for a solution to "my webcam is a PoS" problem a few weeks ago. I realized that a good sensor etc. will cost money, so the hardware should be useful outside meetings. I thought I would spend about $500 on a basic DSLR. After some contemplation, I decided that this was an opportunity to take up a new hobby, and now I'm about to buy a Sony A6000 plus some prime lenses. Just an anecdote.
I have gone through something very similar, feel free to email me.
My guess is that the SPAC does the S1 filing before making the acquisition. Therefore they don't need another S1.

Out of curiosity, how onerous is the S1 filing? Is it any more difficult to fulfill than the annual reporting requirements?
Yessir, that's my (perhaps unclear) point. Give it the trigger on the "complex" C128 and we get a read fail. But scan success on attempt 3 or 4. QR scans with high success on first bread.
The grandparent comment stated this. The TCF needs to make a case directly to the investor to show their worth and tell their side of the story.

It's not explicit this was done, so it's assumed it wasn't. If the TCF hasn't spoken to the investor directly, it's relatively easy to assume the investor will vote in the NTF's direction.

Lots of assumptions, but we don't have that much to go on.
It is also a more general behavior, observed when people are raised in extremely strict households. They can become very shy of conflicts, and start lying about the smallest things - stuff that regular people wouldn't think twice about lying.

Basically - anything that could lead to some sort of conflict, they can lie about, just to avoid.

Which is kind of ironic - as people often cite or view strict upbringing as something which will build character and "mature" kids for adult life. But then you see a lot of these kids end up becoming master liars.
I don't think the problem is the companies but the band itself, which follows physical laws. GP has experience with the limits of this band because it's used by Sprint/T-Mobile.
All of these components can form through nonbiological means. For example, amino acids[0] and nucleobases[2] can be found in interstellar gas clouds.[0] Lipid membranes form simply because of their polar properties.[1]

[0] https://physicsworld.com/a/amino-acid-detected-in-space/

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9928/

[2] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-12404-1
The counterbalance is that they are underwriting the stock, meaning, they are actually buying the stock from the company, and then selling it into the market.

The umderwriters are the one's actually putting money up 'ahead of time' at the 'specific price' for the company, which involves some risk obviously.

So if the underwriters price too high, they are stuck with shares.

The people to first buy shares from the underwriteres are likely other institutional investors, and then large private wealth clients etc..

Understand that this is likely one source of the 'jump' - large institutional investors are not generally buying to flip the stock on the same day, in fact, the underwriters (and even AirBnB) don't want that. They don't want volatility.

Ideally, AirBnB sells to the bank/underwriters, the big funds buy from the underwriting bank and then hold. All of this will have been established/prepared for during the roadshow. AirBnB is huge, Fidelity wants a cut, so they'll take an allocation X shares for $Y on 'the day'.

Nice, clean, straightforward, not a lot of volatility.

Going an 'IPO' is like 'being born' - it's a sensitive time and a lot of money is changing hands you want it to go 'as planned' and 'smoothly'.

So there's likely a smaller number of shares really floating out there on day 1, which may enhance the pressure from the demand curve.
I'm curious, is something like Shift to draw patentable?
And the magic of capitalism delivered very little of that which is calculable it to the owning company or the scientists that invented them.