skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
A potential problem with this waiting period is that usable RF spectrum is routinely repurposed (called refarming) from legacy use cases to newer technologies. By the time your patent around a particular kind of radio is expired, the spectrum itself might be nearing the end of its lifetime for that purpose.
Yeah, Tesla has had a good range for a long time, though I'd consider Tesla to be an expensive option. Not saying overpriced, just expensive.
Why should you be the one building it? Why not take a chunk of the 8x salary, find a person to execute first year or so of the idea? Once it's direction is clear, you can jump full time to it. I understand the other person might not be passionate but atleast he will be your employee.
Seeking Advice: software engineering internship for career-switcher
I am a mid-life career switcher. I'd would like to get advice on how to gain experience in the field. Currently, I am enrolled in a CS degree program(starting soon) and working on side projects. I am interested in decentralized technologies. However, lots of these companies seem to only look for seasoned programmers and do not have entry-level positions.

My question is: should I apply for ANY types of software engineering internships? If so, what kinds of experiences are most important to beginners?
Plotly.py 5.0
Flux was not handled with scrutiny by the react community. All the implementations of it were weird, so much so that people thought Redux was the least weird of all. Take that for what it’s worth. I consider it the dark ages of React.
As with most fields a lot of it relates back to the first principles of the field. A lot of it is around what the best way to classify, measure, and show an economic transaction. One example that comes to mind is the development of Activity Based Costing in the late '80s as an improvement on traditional cost accounting.
Probably not using git ideally. Do you clean your history after working on a feature?
Something that gets lost is that this is also a variety of OOP.

https://www.amazon.com/Component-Software-Object-Oriented-Pr...

Programming against Objective-C protocols, COM interfaces, Component Pascal framework, and so forth.
I made this jump in 2019. To some of the points made here:

1. You need to understand why you want to do a startup. "Building something of my own...": why do you want to do that? Why is that important to you?

2. Find a problem (market) you love, not a solution (product). You will be working on that problem for the next 10 years.

3. Talk to startup founders who have failed. There is a lot of celebrated romanticism of successful founders. 90%+ of startups fail though. Those failed folks are pretty smart and capable, but it's an uphill battle. If you've typically succeeded at tasks you set out at, startupland can be a big ego hit.

4. Is there a hybrid approach? One failed startup founder I know decided to work at Amazon after and try to grow a division there. He was successful in that. He took it from <$10MM to >$100MM as a GM. Zero to one is hard.

5. There's a lot of unglamourous stuff. e.g., all things legal and finance. If/when you hire people, you need to also focus on management and growing your folks.
If the business is not sustainable without living wages, it doesn't deserve to exist, just like there's no more chattel slaves picking cotton.

I'm sure the economics of paying for work on plantations also did not add up.
Against Meme Activism
That would've been fun too as a different challenge (I wrote the blog post). My main hesitation was that doing so might prevent me from using the built-in VM/hardware emulators they provide, so I wouldn't be able to easily run my solution.
I agree that collaborative text editing between multiple users simultaneously is hard.

That doesn't mean that Git couldn't have a much better UI for this problem than it does. And while I agree that Git seems to have mostly won over SVN and Hg, it doesn't follow that it's because of its UI. (For example, I think that a lot of Git's success actually comes from the UI of GitHub, not Git itself, but I don't have evidence to back it up.)

Take a look at the Research section at the bottom of https://gitless.com/ for work that's been done on how to accomplish the same operations with a simpler conceptual model.
Are you not routing based on latency and reliability like i.e. Babel does? You're only routing based on number of hops?
Other comments contradict this. Also, it doesn't pass a common sense test. How can you validate the air speed meter with zero airspeed? The correct reading is the same as a common completely broken reading.
Breastfeeding every 2 hours for the first few months is a little bit of a structural issue that the father cannot mitigate. Such a poisonous system that people cannot feel comfortable enjoying the first few months, much less year or two bonding with their child.
> will just ghost a one man operation or small business

I didn't understand this phrase. Does that mean the "good" lawyer is just a false front and the real business is handled by somebody else?
Does github feel much slower to others these days? I feel like my page is >5 seconds to interactivity often. I feel like Github used to be far faster.
Exactly to prove to people like yourself that it is possible.

IT industry is full of Matthews that need to be proven wrong for us to advance.
Are you saying that carpenters, electricians, pumblers, builders, cobblers, taxi drivers, nurses, and public school teachers are 95% incompetant? If so, please kindly provide anecdata. This is a positively ridiculous acusation.
I've tried a bunch of online whiteboard tools to design stuff (where stuff could be system architecture, UI, a business process, whatever), and nothing beats a whiteboard + post-its. Maybe I'm doing it wrong, it's possible, and I'd love to have some great counter-examples. Until then, I think that teams that can meet up in person will, on average, win over those who can't.

Other days I just have long list of individual tasks that I want to get through without being distracted. On those days I'd love to just work from home, have space to dramatically crash on my bed to think about things, go for walks, etc.

With these two things combined I think the hybrid approach is probably going to win out, either where employees can use their own judgement when to WFH, or maybe having a system around particular days of the week.
Can run on Windows, Linux and macOS.
Open source, free, no need to install.
Just double-click, and then you can use it freely.
Before use, you only need to install gnupg.
Supports multiple languages.
I just want to take a moment and recognize Kay. So many awesome interviews!

Each time I enjoy one, I am fascinated by how so many things connect, what it meant to people, how they think...

Thank you Kay. Seriously.
Sounds like mercurial repos would have a lot of "noise" with that approach - commits for fixing other commits spamming everywhere
"there are only 2 human genders" does not contradict "Intersex people don't exist" because such a condition doesn't constitute a biological gender. If it did, it wouldn't be called a "disorder".

That said, we can just agree on what words mean, if if there are discrepancies, we can just label alternate definitions, to ensure they remain consistent.

Which still brings us to the question: why aren't men allowed in women's bathrooms? If it's just the physical possession of a penis, this would still disqualify many trans-women.
Rhode island makes financial literacy classes required for high school students
> My understanding is that a lot of the Trawnikis were simply trying to stay alive

My understanding was different. These were willing participants, going above and beyond the mere instinct to survive. See my other replies. At the behest of their Nazi masters, the Trawniki enacted key parts of the Holocaust and of Generalplan Ost -- the plan to exterminate most of the Slavic population of Eastern Europe.

I urge everyone commenting here to read what the Trawniki actually did. These weren't mere collaborators!
There are basically two ways to respond.

1) roll over and show your belly, and pay up

2) get a patent attorney and fight.

Depending on the size and resources of the patent troll, you may intimidate them out of pursuing the matter just by lawyering up. No one wants protracted litigation, not even vexatious litigants, for whom the fear of litigation is far more profitable than the actual court proceedings. It's money in your pocket if you can get your victims to spook and settle. Muggers work the same way: they don't want a fight, they want you to get scared and hand over your wallet.

I'm not saying that option two is best for you. That depends on your resources. But it's something to consider.
I mean by this logic all tier1 service engineers are just rotating SREs anyway (though I do know some services already have dedicated SREs for operations work)
I think this is a good question; as the author of this, my general attitude to these kind of things is that I'd rather just be myself rather than try to tactically modify my behaviour to get better outcomes.

I've seen people advise that you should "avoid controversial topics" on first dates, as that "might be a turn-off". Well, maybe it can be (certainly had a few dates like that), but that would also be boring conversation, and not very meaningful as such if you're actually looking for a serious relationship (which doesn't apply to just romantic relationships by the way, also other kind of social relationships). Related comment from last year: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23788380

It's partly cultural as well; I've seen this in certain countries (cough England cough), where everyone avoids talking about anything meaningful so all they talk about is the weather or some such pointless conversation because they're afraid someone could possible disagree with something they say. It's not like I'm against small-talk, but if that's all you do... Okay, I'm exaggerating a little bit, but it's certainly very different from my own Dutch culture where people tend to be a lot more forthright.

It's not like I will just say whatever without any filter or consideration for other people's feelings, or what might be inappropriate, or without being receptive to feedback. Actually, I try to be quite conscious in how I communicate, especially online where the lack of body language and diversity of culture/social norms can make things pretty darn hard. But at the end of the day this is mostly about how you say something rather than what you say. e.g. "this is stupid" vs. "I'm not sure if this is a good idea".

There are always trade-offs of course. I was known as "Carpetsmoker" online for years and I changed it across the board over a period of a few years to "arp242" mostly because I felt "Carpetsmoker" didn't sound too professional (a lot of people seem to associate it with drug use – I don't even like to smoke cannabis! It was just a funny joke I made when I was 14 that turned in to a nickname). I still think it's kinda funny, but what's an appropriate nickname when you were 14 isn't necessarily appropriate when you're 36 and actually use your GitHub as a way to earn your living, and it doesn't really matter all that much what your name is; so I just changed it.

I publish it on my personal name because I see it as my personal space. Being anonymous would make it "arp242's personal space" rather than "Martin's personal space". I know some people like to keep their "online identity" more separate from their "real life identity", but personally I don't really separate things out all that much.

This is a bit rambly maybe; I'm having a hard time to articulate my feelings on this ... but I hope it makes sense.

And, of course, everyone can make their own choices in this.
One of the few good parts of scrum is to have developers judge difficulty before assigning work. It’s not going to be completely accurate so 800 vs 900 units over a few months is probably meaningless. However, very large differences are a sign of problems as are code quality issues etc.

At a more basic level measuring value created vs what you pay someone is far more important than measuring hours worked.
You're reading too much into what I said. Nothing in it suggests a lack of empathy. I made no qualitative statements beyond the bit about rich people needing to pay back into the system that made their wealth possible. There is absolutely no judgement of any people in developing countries.
Please don’t “test” to see if people are slacking when they’re wfh. Successful wfh requires a high degree of trust. Everyone benefits from that increased trust. It’s an unspoken upside of wfh.

> Do they deliver what is expected of them?

If the answer to this question is “yes”, then congrats! You have a great team and shouldn’t waste your energy (and their well-being) worrying if they are working hard or not.
I'm probably one of the few people to have experienced both the accounting program in university and the history program in university. My original degree is in history, and I ended up going back to school to train as an accountant (I'm a CPA now working at a non-Big 4 public accounting firm).

It could be just my school, but the quality of professors in each program were light years apart. To a person, the history professors were personable, smart and good lecturers. They cared about their students and helped them succeed. Accounting professors, on the other hand, largely stood up in front of the class, read directly from their slideshows, and answered any questions with "read your textbook".

My thought is that this is related to the supply and demand between the two fields. In history, universities can afford to hire the best of the field. They can picky and wait for the right person to come along. In accounting, the best of the field go make big bucks somewhere else. Professors pay well, but not nearly as well as working at a firm. I can't imagine working at a Big 4 firm and teaching as well, just with the hour commitment of their full time job!

As an aside, when I was completing my history degree and considering next steps, I consulted with one of my professors who basically told me I should give up my dream of becoming a PhD just because of how horrible the job market is. I ended up applying for my masters anyways and was rejected, which I take now as a blessing. I made more in my entry level job in accounting that I probably would be making now if I had ended up with my PhD.
I remember the unreal 1 editor, with apple and dinosaur head icons all around the map. Not because there were apples or dinosaurs in the game, just as representation of scripts and paths. They were totally off-meaning but very recognizable: you saw in a second what was supposed to happen.

I presume the floppy icon is comparable: Visually distinguished from all other icons, so a good icon even if the shape lost its actual meaning
More interesting, I think, is the critique given by Kavanaugh regarding the NCAA's business model in general: condemning the idea of making billions in revenue off of essentially uncompensated student-athlete labor. It's nice to see the court recognize that the entire thing is exploitative.

I'm tired of the argument that it gives the students exposure to pro league recruiting. Just because they are students, it doesn't mean they shouldn't be directly compensated for their work (and the NCAA wants to even bar them from forms of indirect compensation!). When it comes to the idea of employment as an athlete, the NCAA is not materially different from, say, the NBA.
So's... like, everything in society, really. Capitalism itself comes readily to mind, as an extreme form of soft social control that's actually not all that soft at all, in aggregate.

In the case of clothing, marking willful non-conformists is, notably, a significant part of its true (as in: accurate and useful) signaling value. This is where some counter-cultural fashions come from, in fact—an effort to make it crystal clear that one is dressing contrary to fashion norms on purpose and not by accident. To signal a distinction between the non-conformist and the ignorant or destitute.
How much are you paid?
I find it shocking that bad uplink in private homes is still a problem in the US. In times where a good proportion of public life happens on the web, most of shopping is done online, and media are dominated by streaming, why do people not run rampant against the lack of a decent wired uplink?
I have a few friends working on masters and phds in the humanities. it's very tough getting a job in academia, but it's not exactly easy to get a relevant job in the private sector either. I'm sure some of them believe they are the special ones that will actually get tenure-track positions, but I think there's also an element of simply not being ready for school to be "over". I really struggled with school and find employment to be much more straightforward. but these people really thrive in the academic environment.
The thing with command line interfaces is that since the same interface is used by humans and computer scripts, you essentially end up with an unversioned API that you can never make breaking changes to.
And see if you can interest Cloudflare: https://techcrunch.com/2021/04/26/cloudflare-rallies-the-tro...
This is diametral to my experience at a European university. Could this be a cultural difference?
How about requiring a jury of "peers" who actually know the first thing about the subject matter when these things do go to court.
Yes, I am aware of that. Just wanted to express my opinion.

For example, Netflix is doing a bad job at providing Dutch subtitles. Barely any tv show has Dutch subtitles. Disney+ does a much better job.
Makes me wonder: Are we failing to teach how to apply history to present-day problems, or do we as a society really value history so little?
I hate git passionately, but I still find it somewhat understandable. I understand what it does but that of course doesn’t change my view that its UX has the elegance and consistency of an early php draft that went through a document shredder.

Git has a nice elegant layer underneath though. The DAG of commits is a very nice model, covered in a layer of terrible commands, and a few rather unnatural abstractions like the staging area.

I think to effectively use it you need to work with your brain squarely in that lower layer. Trying to think in terms of sequences of commands rather than a tree of commits and references is hopeless.

The fact that the UX concepts (commands, working copy, reflog staging area, …) and the underlying model (graph) are difficult to reconcile is git’s biggest weakness.

The difficulty with which is models some of the most common use cases (centralized, often including a few large binary files) is another.
That would be nice but will probably never happen due to backwards compatibility. Breaking changes in git would be even worse than the slow switch to Python 3.
Great job picking up Go for this.
> I also do not have anything to complain about my job, my manager or my company

This is gold, Even as someone who is very risk-seeking I'm not sure I would want to give this up, until I was truly ready to break out on my own, fully independent, AND have a war chest to play around with startups. However, you might have a different risk tolerance and appetite as me, or, maybe there's nothing to complain about and that's why it's boring. With that in mind:

> Within 8 years my salary has grown 8x

If you're in tech and have had that trajectory, why not pay someone to work on your startup?
I don't think using `git pull` is a particular good way of working. A pull is a fetch and merge or a rebase combined.

If it's difficult to keep your mental model of some system up to date, I doubt that doing bigger steps at once makes things easier.

So

1. run `git fetch`

2. if the textual output does not tell you what has happened, run `gitk -all`

3. Decide what to do. Rebase, merge, whatever.

Of course if you know exactly what you are doing, pull can be fine. If you changed the repo yourself on another computer that is the case. Otherwise, how can you know your second step, before having even seen the data you are operating on? Well, it can work, but if it doesn't, don't complain.
Agreed, another happy Fork user here. I switched from Tower as it just got more and more expensive and added features I don't need.
I would recommend doing your best to try and figure out a way to not leave your job completely, yet still give yourself the time you need to build something without completely relying on doing it on the side. Can you cut your time back to 4 days a week, and work on your start up on the 5th day? Can you take a sabbatical for a month or two so that you can dive deep on building something without having to completely leave your job?

I would assume that if you're that successful that your company would be willing to give you some flexibility as opposed to you just outright leaving, and that you have the financial means to do so. Rather than having this be an all or nothing thing, figure out a way to leverage some flexibility to build while maintaining some connection to your current job/position/company.
To "ghost" someone is to avoid them without a response. The term probably came from personal relationships (e.g., a woman you were dating starts "ghosting" you). It was previously considered rude but is now appropriate to avoid potentially toxic personal or professional relationships.
Every student I have supervised has had a job lined up immediately after graduating and often had multiple offers. The jobs outside academia in industry R&D pretty much all required a PhD and as a masters student you would be more like a technician (there are exceptions but only very few). I work in optical telecommunications, so at the interface of engineering and physics.

So if you want to do actual R&D work in this area you absolutely should be doing a PhD. Considering that you are quite well paid during the studies as well is also a plus.
I personally think the humanities education would be better served by divorcing it from making a living (which it actually traditionally was for centuries, and only changed in the last 100 or so years).

Making it about supporting yourself, kind of actually hurts humanities education and, I think, inevitably distorts it.

Rather, it should be about becoming a well-rounded person independent of making money.

I am a software engineer and have a comfortable salary. However, I would love to be able to do deeper study into History, Art, and Philosophy, not because it will enable me to make more money, but simply because it would make me a better person and expose me to a deeper understanding of the ups and downs of being human.

Maybe humanities needs to change its target primarily from 18 year olds who are figuring out what to do with their lives, to 40 year olds, who already make money, but want to learn more about what it means to be human.
You invest your time into your appearance so other people won't need to waste their time trying to determine if you're trustworthy.
Appearance is a heuristic. Raging about it is counter-productive.
We still use tortoiseSVN at work. It's crude but shockingly simple to use. Moving to git would be a significant expense just to train people not to break things and to get them used to CLI.
If you publish a paper or Two every year in your field... what more do you need to do to actually get the degree?

If I had a student like that I would go ahead and graduate him or her. (It takes a very long time to publish anything in Econ so that kind of productivity would be hard to reach though.)
I somehow get a feeling that if the prospects were actually good in any sense, colleges would advertise them whenever they had the chance (is there even reliable information about how salaries are distributed? Not just means and standard deviations).

I got an undergraduate degree that has 0% unemployment rate with good salaires because there are so few graduates, but for a PhD (that I was thinking of getting) there is no guarantee that even the places where I would work are good enough in terms of research or teaching.