skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
ANGI Homeservices | Platform Engineering Opportunities | DevOps & SRE | Remote | Full Time

ANGI Homeservices is the parent company of HomeAdvisor, Angie's List and Handy. We are spearheading the digital transformation of the homeservices industry, and our growth and scale over the years to become a $1.4+ billion company has solidified us as the leader in the homeservices marketplace.

We are hiring experienced DevOps & Site Reliability engineers at the Mid, Senior and Staff level for remote opportunities across the US.

Our stack consists of Kubernetes, Docker, Jenkins, Terraform, Ansible, Java Spring Boot, Oracle, Postgres, Coherence, Redis, Elasticsearch inside a hybrid cloud.

We offer competitive benefits:

* Health, dental, vision, and life insurance
* Flexible vacation policy; take time when you need it
* 401k matching program
* Competitive year end performance bonus & equity package

Current Openings at HomeAdvisor:

* Senior Site Reliability Engineer: https://grnh.se/a2ee00ca2us

* Site Reliability Engineer: https://grnh.se/f6ddfb842us

* Senior DevOps Engineer: https://grnh.se/98bf404f2us

* DevOps Engineer: https://grnh.se/59598c612us

Current Openings at Handy:

* Senior Site Reliability Engineer: https://grnh.se/6dafeaa62us

Come join our team and help us revolutionize the homeservices industry through innovation and focus on customer experience!
Why we don’t hire .NET programmers (2011 but timeless)
I’ve never been unable to chat with an Apple rep.

Have had no problems reaching people about dev accounts, but also no problem even about consumer subscription services with unusual challenges, such as wanting to merge music or app libraries belonging to two different Apple IDs. (Can be done, an self-serve easy way and an Apple-performed hard way.)

In earlier HN thread, someone said “Devs would be more than happy to pay $300/yr to be able to talk to someone!”

My guess is an HN survey would suggest devs prefer to be outraged at Apple’s $100/yr — despite it being a price point at which you get to talk to people.
Clickbait is already banned.

This story was also submitted with a less-clickbaity, more-informative title: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26066955

But, predictably, it got fewer clicks.
Unfortunately, enabling TOR basically makes your traffic "malicious-shaped" these days. One of the largest users of privacy services are users (bot or human) who don't want their traffic easily traced because they're doing something malicious.

It's definitely not the only use case for such services, but if a service provider sees that 90% of traffic shaped a certain way is malicious traffic, it's understandable they will take steps to mitigate that traffic.

ETA: I'm not happy about it because I believe in the value of anonymity, but it is what it is. Here's a Cloudflare blog post talking about the challenges handling Tor traffic, which to their estimate is (a) 94% malicious "per se," so any tooling you do that tries to estimate intent based on origin IP address is gummed up by the malicious signal emanating from the same Tor exit node as your legit traffic and (b) anonymized by design, therefore any attempts you might make to build a reptutation signal for a given client are intended to be thwarted. The result is that a Tor user's traffic looks reputationless to a service like Cloudflare, and you can't just assume reputationless signal is benign (so, CAPTACHAs and "bot-like behavior suspected" walls).

https://blog.cloudflare.com/the-trouble-with-tor/
Small SaaS vendor checking in. This comment rings true and it’s a constant battle.
I think halvings-driving-fomo is a myth. Each halving is possibly a catalyst for the crowds-waiting-to-jump-in, but not the reason for them occuring in the first place. Even without halvings, there would be speculative bubbles, then they'd pop, and the bubble attracted attention and people would start forming a line, but not buying until price begins to confidently move upwards.

Since there's little actual utility in using bitcoin right away (even if it was accepted everywhere, but you have fiat, why would you need to buy btc and immediately sell it?), people who'd like to invest would never rush buying until price stabilizes and begins growing. This naturally produces these "steps": BTC goes up 5-10x, then mania kicks in, then it goes 2-3x higher and then pops 2-3x down. Every convinced investor bought before the mania phase, weak hands sold off at a moderate return or at a loss, while a bunch of new people got interested.

Halvings are just one of those points that help tipping off the balance for the already formed crowd.
Hiding a DNS entry doesn't do anything to hide the machine. How long do you think a newly exposed IP address, without a DNS entry, will last before it is probed?
People will just be giving you advice based on their own subjective values. It might be stuff like "spend more time with your family" or "make sure you're contributing to your pension" or some other abitrary thing someone older is kicking *themselves* about. I'm turning 29 soon. One thing I've learned is you should make sure you are able to listen to yourself and live life according to your own values whatever they may be. We all have to die sometime so I guess make sure you're making the most of your time here on earth according to what *you* truly value. That will surely be time well spent. I understand that this might be paradoxical given I'm clearly giving you advice based on my own values which is self knowledge. My conclusion is why look to others for life advice given that there are practically an unlimited number of ways you can live life, you probably have the answers inside yourself. (EDIT: Psychotherapy might help you find those answers)
What figures, exactly?

Here, we're discussing a paper characterizing the current version of the process first with ring oscillators and measured delays through a single cell, and then with a serial bit adder, so.. if you mean those, yes?
In practice you to find a meaningful solution, i.e., it has to have the right structure/format. If I'm trying to hack your email (whatever that means), the solution would need to look like a valid email message, with reasonable headers and in the expected language.
Get your personal finances in order. Pay off all non-house non-car debt. Spend less. Start saving for retirement. Get a promotion and put all of that extra money in a boring low fee target date fund. You can expect to be able to live off of 4% of your investments for at least 30 years. For example, if you have $1M in investments, you can safely withdraw $40k / year from that. Plan accordingly.
1. Start paying attention to your thought and feelings.

2. Find a good therapist.

3. Speak with the therapist about inconsistencies between your thoughts, feelings and who you want to be.
You underestimate the value of having a different perspective. Yes, it can be a bad move if she is a disaster at coding. But think about what value for the company it is to have a developer who has a clue about design and can communicate way above average. How much of our developer job is really about coding?

It is a risky move and not one I would recommend to anyone - but it is one I‘ve done myself (incl. pay cut) to get the experience to boost my career. Also keep in mind that careers span decades and while specialization is sought the landscape does shift (sometimes quickly) and diversity of skills can provide a degree of robustness.

And yes, the career track slides are not a foundation on which to base decisions.
The problem is that you are likening her to a janitor to create the impression that she has zero programming experience. First of all, if you'd read the article you'll find she probably has as much experience as a lot of bootcamp grads. You're also kind of insulting janitors by assuming none of them could possibly have any coding skills.

So many people nowadays learn coding using "non-traditional" means, and some of those people are REALLY good. Her skills were evaluated over a period of time and she was found to be worthy of a place. Why is that so difficult to believe? If this story were about a man, how would your reaction be different?
But do we even need a distributed ledger? Centralized ledgers are easy to maintain in the modern world, and don't require much human energy (or compute energy) to maintain. It is why transaction costs are generally extremely low. Blockchain transactions on the other hand are astronomically expensive and slow. The value of a distributed ledger derives solely from paranoia of a central authority, despite there being little evidence for said paranoia.
Show HN: I built an internet speed analytics tool
> - Presumably more people will be online, and more ways to use crypto will be released.

Bitcoin launched in 2007. Facebook opened to the public in 2006. One of those has 3 billion users, the other can't get out of the basement. Why haven't we seen more of those ways yet?

> It's still very early days for crypto

Facebook is one year older, and it's now basically a nation state in power and scale. When will it stop being "very early days for crypto"?
From Educator to Developer
> they end up having to allow some misleading or completely false disinformation

That is most of politics....
There are no clear boundaries, for any law. Almost. Which is why laws need courts.
These are all common points for people who are overly focused on blockchain per se (invented in 1991!) at the expense of distributed cryptography as a whole. If the writer were curious enough to look in, for example, BLS threshold crypto, they might get an inkling of the power here, which goes far beyond currency.
Maybe they're porting over the Azure DevOps code which also has 'degraded performance' issues about every other day.
Bitcoin is a bubbly fad, which leads to so much crime around the globe. For example, every month in Bulgaria they catch thieves of electricity running Bitcoin mining and often leaving bills of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Even if this didn't exist, the rest of the mining happens in China where electricity is subsidized and pollutes and environment and the major exchanges are in China, too. So, we turn CO2 into money for some hodlers who wanna wake up rich one day without doing anything productive for this planet and civilization. Bitcoin did not change the world, it cannot, and most of the cryptos are just empty hopes... on a white piece paper.
This post is so fundamentally flawed it's baffling someone upvotes it.

> Every advocate promotes holding, which is not what a currency is for: currencies are meant to be a medium of exchange and to change hands.

You cannot dictate what currencies are used for. I like my currencies to keep a purchasing power. FIAT is not salabe over time. Its value decreases every day.

> We need inflation to keep the economy going.

No we don't. Tech is inherently deflationary, yet Iphone purchases increase year by year.

> they say that it's a currency, when it's not. It is not accessible to everybody (not everybody has access to internet).

Bitcoin is accesible via satelite, also try setting up a USD bank account in Iran :) Bitcoin is more accessible than any fiat currency ever has.

> if you lose your key, you lose the access to your wallet for good and nobody can help you. People seem to not understand how bad this is. Imagine people losing everything because of one silly mistake.

For some reason people think that just because the base is a final settlement layer, that there will be no systems such as banks with accounts build on top of it? You can have insured accounts on top of Bitcoin.

> Volatility is the enemy of any economy market: we need stability and predictability to avoid mayhem:

Bitcoin is in it search for it's pricing. This is going to take some time. No one who didn't sell made any losses as of yet.

I really don't get why some of you prefer FIAT central banks systems with settlement processes even bankers can't comprehend over a simple beautiful system that is auditable by even below average programmers.

In the end the hardest money always succeeds.
BTC and BCH, ETH and ETC...

How about they stop forking first?
I might be wrong, but I don't think anything found at L'Anse was likely to have been actually manufactured in Europe. Instead the artifacts were (probably) made by people originally from Europe (or their decedents) either locally in Canada or in Greenland.

That might be the distinction they are trying to make.
AES has been observed to be very slightly leaky but not in a way that is practically exploitable, partly because even finding it is memory hard on a large volume of data. I know respected crypto experts that have been looking into this anomaly for a few years. It isn't out of the realm of possibility that there is a quantum shortcut related to that state leak.
> they say that it's a currency, when it's not

Correct, it's a store of value. See my comment here [1].

> It is not accessible to everybody (not everybody has access to internet).

Internet usage keeps growing [2].

> Also, as a technology, blockchain itself it's not that impressive.

People are forgetting that Nakamoto Consensus is a legitimate CS breakthrough concerning the Byzantine Generals Problem [3].

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26065232

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Internet_usage

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_fault
I love walking for multiple reasons including health benefits, exploring my neighborhood, having some alone time to think about things - the list goes on - but during the pandemic, I find myself just too despondent at all the people I see not wearing masks or social distancing where there are crowds.

I realize of course that it's in my power to just ignore it and get on with my own business - believe me I've tried - but inevitably now when I return home, I have an overwhelming sadness that spoils everything.

It's clear no one is going to change their behavior and I have explored ways for me to get past it but so far, nothing has worked.
Can you name one specific use case you see distributed ledgers being useful?
who do you think should govern the reserve currency of the world?

Nobody governs gold, seems to work just fine.
That difference seems small enough that child abuse (and specifically sexual abuse) could conceivably account for all of it. Girls are 4x more likely to experience childhood sexual abuse than boys.
Thank you. That puts a lot of things into perspective.
Maybe instead of regulations we could spend the money as a society on non-coercive mitigations like education about technology that would allow people to see that centralized corporate services will always end up this way.
Elon found that he can manipulate bitcoin price quite freely, without any regulations issues. He can use that do make a lot of wealth, and its probably not illegal (not a lawyer tho, so I'm not sure). And Tesla has more cash than him personally, so it makes more sense if its Tesla doing the move.
I did. I responded because imo under normal circumstances nobody would be offered this kind of deal. It doesn't make economical sense for the company.

She was given leeway and my guess is because she's a woman among other things. Women do have advantages that men don't.

Women also have disadvantages but that is not my point. I am simply pointing out one area where women have an advantage in a male dominated field. It's a real advantage.
My reasoning;

1. OP specifically said offshore hires presumably for cheaper wages. Anywhere wages are currently cheap there's a greater incentive to run Internet scams: it's farther from law enforcement agencies that care, alternate employment doesn't pay as well, there's even a culture of acceptability in some countries where trickling money from richer nations is seen as a net benefit to the local society.

2. Google is a high profile target. Scammers will try to get hired, existing workers will get bribed or realize the opportunity they have.

I don't have any scientific evidence. https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.abs-cbn.com/amp/business/0... is one instance of Google having to switch vendors for fraud in a non-1st-world country.
I'm looking for something similar, but for amounts around $1-2.

What restrictions can you tolerate? For example, US-only, or EU-only, or require people to sign up for bank accounts.

I can't imagine PayPal will be happy with a new account doing several thousand outgoing transactions, for one thing.
Require SSE3 for Chrome on x86
What I don't understand is why they lock you out of your data when they ban you. For IRL evictions, they'll give you notice to start moving your belongings or, worst-case, dump them on the curb. Sucks, but you still ostensibly have access to them. If Google bans you, they should provide avenues to permanently move data out of their services. Not providing this is tantamount to theft, since I sincerely doubt that the data is straight-up thrown out; it's still used for and tangled up in their ad and machine learning algos.
On the contrary, the power of distributed ledger is akin to the power of federation instead of centralization vs. decentralization. It’s a proverbial third way.
Where'd the comment go? I wanted to say tell that guy that my manager is actually competent, so he has my respect, but I would not capitalize the word "boss". He may pay your bills, yet that doesn't make him family[1].

Anyway, I see guys mentoring guys all the time. There's nothing sexual 'bout it!

[1] https://www.grammarly.com/blog/capitalization-family-title/
All of these on our roadmap. Do you use laser cutting for work?
It aged like milk, and additions at the top are /r/AwardSpeechEdits [1] grade material.

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/AwardSpeechEdits/
> 1. Don't use personal gmail accounts for your business.

A good practice but won't help with this issue. Google has a history of banning business (admin/paying) accounts when it thinks that some user (under that business domain) has an unrelated personal account that was banned.

There have been stories here on HN describing how a small startup lost its Google Play account because one of their employees had their personal account banned for a terms of service violation. Then Google viewed that same person having an user account underneath the business account as ban evasion. In a puzzling move Google then proceeded to close the whole business account, so lots of collateral damage.

It's pretty crazy stuff.
But we do measure a person by their reproductive success. Where would one see otherwise?
(July 2019)
>If they had competition, they would be spending billions on customer support, but because they have a monopoly, they can get away with having virtually none.

I can't agree with this, there is so much competition in this field already and and it doesn't seem to make a difference. There will always be ad-supported free services with minimal support and few security/privacy guarantees, that is the entire low end of the market.
Thanks for your thoughtful comment. I'm afraid I'm not sure I understand/agree with your position. Certainly the volume of manufactured goods doesn't matter much to me any more than the total mass (which might even tip the scales, so to speak, in the US's favor).

I assume you mean that the US makes a smaller distribution of goods. From a Ricardo PoV this should be irrelevant.

OK, but we live in the real world. As I said, I do think there are some bad problems, a major one in this regard being the lack of supply chain diversity (some of which would be handy to have in the US). Lack of such diversity increases friction on developing new products. Not sure it's a long term problem though (see below).

The clue is in your statement "China simply needs better technology to be able to manufacture the very high value goods that are dominant in the US". China's labor advantage is where humans are required, and demographically, China faces a labor force squeeze in the coming decades, especially when compared to India and much of Africa, but also when compared to the USA. So the Chinese government does have a focus on increased high tech value add (consider planes and the humble biro (ball) pen) and automation. The US is also investing heavily in automation and has been for a while due to its labor costs (I believe the labor content of US manufacturing is lower than the OECD average).

So there's a race in the traditional Christiansen sense of "innovation" but in this case the US is extending the automation advantage downwards while China is following the "classic" path upwards (as with the canonical example of minimills). As the degree of automation increases the US margins go up leaving more capital for further development and eroding the advantages of economies that compete only on the basis of human labor -- a kind of extractive industry, actually, though not typically thought of that way. As the marginal cost of production drops, the comparative advantage shifts the other way and I presume all developed economies would incrementally "onshore" more of their manufacturing, in part for a simpler just in time system, and otherwise because at that point shipping cost becomes a material part of BOM cost.

This is almost completely a good thing, unless what you have to sell is labor. And that's the problem all around: the US labor force is not that well equipped any more for manufacturing jobs. That doesn't really bother me; I've always considered it absurd that some people think the function of companies is to provide jobs (or much worse, that the function of humans is to perform jobs). The right objective is to simply pay people to be alive and let them enjoy the goods and services they like. Let automation eliminate as much of the drudgery and danger as possible.

This does seem to be discouraging for probably 3B of the world's population who have nothing to sell but their unskilled labor. But the topic of this thread is the USA and China, so...
"It could take too long :(" is an interesting excuse not to examine the evidence that could put someone behind bars for the rest of their life.
> I've never heard of a company making an investment like that in a stock.

It's commonplace for companies to invest cash in all sorts of things, including stocks, commodities, real-estate and other (fiat) currencies. Some of this is hedging against currency fluctuations, and some is speculative investing for gains.

If Tesla had invested $1.5B in stocks or commodities etc, they couldn't use those to pay for wages etc either. Presumably they view Bitcoin as an investment, and plan to later exchange some/all for fiat currencies, just as you would with stocks or commodities.
Isn't this, in large part, what games like CryptoKitties kind of shows?

Digital art is a good example of "I can validate I own this piece". If you consider this in place with something like, not only digital goods, but even proof-of-ownership of other things (almost like blockchain-based-certificates), I think there may be some interesting applications down the road.
Larger venues in the UK often open at 22:00, I think traditionally this was to overlap with the pub licensing, which forced pubs to close at 23:00, but I could be wrong. They typically close at 04:00 or 06:00.

However, there have always been after hours parties, usually in smaller, more niche venues. The first license enabling a legal after hours night was granted in 1990 [1] and originally used to run two promotions in a single night - kicking everyone out at 03:00ish and starting again.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turnmills
While I agree with the broader point that there should be avenues for someone who's account is incorrectly closed this article is pretty vapid.

There are a lot of examples of individuals who have lost access to their accounts but no discussion of whether this is a significant proportion of google users. If I've got a 1 in 10 million chance of incorrectly losing access to my account that is very different to if there is a 1 in 1000 chance of losing access to my account. Without that context, you're basically just saying "losing access is a crap experience for the person involved" which is obvious from the outset.