skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
From a viability perspective they might not have had a choice —but they could at least have put up a fight.

Overture, which they acquired, did paid ranking, which is reminiscent of AOLs keyword(s).

If Google had stuck to their ideals, someone would have come around and commercialized the idea (as Google did).

The tragedy is Google didn’t try to stall all out commercialization but rather doubled down on it.

Initially they may have been afraid of becoming the AltaVista, the best, but usurped by someone better because they weren’t investing gigantic profits back into it to assure dominance.

In the end they became the monster they feared, and not a docile one at that.
A number of ways:

https://telepromptermirror.com/mirror-flip-screen/

Personally I gave up on the window flippers and use LunaDisplay w/ iPad.

Why? The window flippers flip the window — but not the mouse or button click targets! So you need the whole screen to flip, not just the window.
> Because of such attitude of the previous dev team my client ended up with DB integrity ruined. Previous guys somehow didn't know they should use transactions when updating/deleting stuff in the DB, because hey, it's just API you call, who cares of mambo-jumbo happening behind the curtains, right?

There's a difference between knowing the internal implementation, and the pros/cons of different usage patterns. What you're talking about is having mastery over an interface. This is distinct from knowing the internal implementation.

As someone who used to work as a hardware engineer, I can assure you that there's a tremendous amount of hardware internal-implementation-details that you're ignorant of. But that doesn't get in the way of you being you a great developer, as long as you spend some time understanding the interface and the recommended ways to use the hardware black-box. The same applies to what the OP is describing.
no, it must be computer readable. you cant print and mail your data export.

When the processing is based on consent or a contract, the individual can also ask for you to return their personal data to them or transmit it to another company. This is known as the right to data portability. You should provide the data in a commonly used and machine-readable format.

https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/dealing-with-customers...
How buying a cheap web hosting service would lose you thousands of dollars?
The claims of "insider trading" appear to be in regards to their ad-bidding schemes and manipulation. Not actual public securities fraud.
Indeed, it says precisely what I said in the original post.
Except they are also popular with people that are not working "at scale" where that would matter.
I actually wonder where this came from. It seems like a few popular Spring Boot projects started putting "rest" somewhere in the url path of every http endpoint that returns a serialized data structure in the response body rather than browser-renderable markup, but were they the first to do this?

I try to just call these things an "http API" when talking about it myself, just to mean an endpoint that is intended for consumption by other applications, not by humans, but I'm not gonna fight other people using language the way it works in practice, where words just mean whatever enough people agree they mean, regardless of what the very first user of the word meant.
> Consider cutting down on mainstream media and entertainment

Agree. I've always been a new junkie. To my own detriment. I'm now even weening myself off of Hacker News.

To stay semi-informed, I read about current events a month or more after they happen. This mostly allows time enough for "slow boring" analysis, skipping over the hot takes and outrage machine.
As a web developer, the AMP story is notable.

On many HN comment-threads people complained that AMP pages were in fact a lot slower than the alternatives they could do, and undesirable in other ways too, and AMP didn't seem to be achieving Google's stated goals for it. Either Google has ulterior malicious motives, people posited; or perhaps is just inertially stuck enforcing something that didn't work out how they intended.

Looks like the ulterior malicious motives were it.

Some people in HN threads are inclined to attribute all sorts of malicious conspiratorial motives to facebook/amazon/apple/google that others think are without evidence and likely have other explanations or at any rate who can say; these revelations probably make many of us a bit more inclined to suspect the conspiratorial malicious explanations with or without evidence. "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you."
At the Cleaners
It's not bad to look for something else after six months. Shit jobs exist. Keep looking.

Hard questions for yourself: How did I get in this situation? How did I get such a mismatch between your expectations and reality? Why didn't I see this at the job interview?

Answering these will help you evaluate future job offerings.

Ofcourse I do not know how the interview went. Maybe you didn't ask, maybe you did and they didn't answer fairly. In the first case, ask these questions next time (for example: "Describe to me your process on how you go from source code to a production build?" "How do you run your projects? What methodologies do you use?" "How do you document/test/maintain your code quality?" "What kind of meetings do you have around here?"). See if you can ask about cultural difference as well (you mention Asia vs Europe), and avoid yes/no questions but rather something open.

If they didn't answer fairly during the interview, you have no reason to feel bad for running away.
Monitor students browsing activity in real time to help them stay on task
I doubt you will like S/R then.
>Somehow Toyota has managed to blow the 20 year lead they had on electric vehicles with the Prius by not innovating in this space at all since the original Prius. They instead focused on hydrogen with the Mirai, which turned out to be the wrong bet.

Japanese government as part of climate change efforts bet on hydrogen. The theory being that it's clean burning and such. However, the realization that hydrogen was already a mature industry and it's entirely derived from fossil fuels... that was a very dumb move on their part.

>It's surprising to see that even GM, BMW and Mercedes have "regular" electric cars in the market while Toyota has nothing more than a Tron-car sub-brand concept.

Everyone except Japan. Hyundai ioniq 5 is a crossover that can drag race against mclarens. Teslas are beasts. New Hummer is epic. The new Mustang mache is better than the regular mustang. VW id4 is perfect for what it is supposed to be. GTX performance is coming?

Worse yet, this toyota is kind of trash. Who made the decision that the base model has 150kw motor in 1 and then 2x 80kw in AWD. As opposed to the correct decision of 2x 150kw. The base model of 150kw, ok i get it. The top end being 160kw? Nope. wrong decision.
> Yes, you can with [...a helpful example...]

Some days it's nice to have a lucky 10k problem (https://xkcd.com/1053) in place of a c10k problem (http://www.kegel.com/c10k.html). Thanks.
>I get the sense the web is the worse of modern tech exploitation work practices.

Web work is exploitative because... the workflow is undocumented? If it pays well, who cares?
How do you represent a=rX in octal?
You sound a bit like a pedant, joining a project that's halfway, who wants everyone else to redo all their work from scratch, because it doesn't follow your own preferred academic practices, which you believe are the only right way to do things.

Did your presence in the team increase productivity, or did you primarily drain your teammates time to enforce your ideals? If the latter, then leave.

You can't force others to work the way you want things done. Nobody likes the guy on the team who believes he knows everything better.

But you could've tried to inspire them instead.

Leaving is fine.
>Basket of things with a vastly oversized share of cheap plastic crap made

The "basket of things" is made from the ratios of things consumers buy. BLS explains the methodology and lists the basket, and how it evolves as people buy less horse carriages and more cars, less giant radios and more iPhones, and so on.

Making a basket that better represents inflation would be worth a lot of money, and a lot of groups try, but none really do any better than the BLS.

For example, the Billion Prices Project out of MIT tracks a vastly larger number of things, but ends up with the same inflation rates http://www.thebillionpricesproject.com/
Sorry, but regurgitating binary tree operations is not "coming up with efficient algorithms".
Yes but there is a catch. I've seen some shit from some fundamental lover programmers. The fundamentals are important but not essential to every job, there is hardly a role they can't improve, but they're not guaranteed to give good outcomes. These days is more important to know how to compose high level components in a simple way than optimizing specific algorithms you can learn one from the other tho.
What’s the real challenge here for you?
> The best programmers are better at talking to users and customers, because that is the harder skill.

Uh, what? Most humans find social skills much easier to learn than crunchy engineering skills. Good social skills are way more common in society than, say, deep knowledge of algorithms and data structures.

But it’s not a competition. As you say, programming is rarely a solo activity. Our projects can fail due to a lack of teamwork. Or a lack of technical skill. Or a lack of empathy with our users. Or a lack of leadership. Or a dozen other things.

We need (and need to value, depending on the project) all of this stuff.
Could you quote or explain some of the things that you found to be overtones of white supremacy?
This makes the top 10 of the worst posts I've seen on HN...

>For example, the Gemini protocol is supposed to provide high "power to weight" and many claim that reducing everything to text makes for a better reading experience; but in reality it has created large codebases, many in the one to ten thousand lines of code range, and can be quantifiably observed to make expression incredibly difficult. As well as lacking any basis in program design, computing minimalism can only fake any basis in any ecological concerns or any ecology movement.

Sorry? For one, "program design" is a loose term, which from a hard science perspective means absolutely squat. So "lacking in basis in program design" means nothing, while insinuating that this is some "ad-hoc" thing. But it would be ad-hoc as opposed to what?

What "basis in program design" have crufty protocols like SOAP or the modern web, that a purposefully small protocol lacks?

I don't even know what "basis in program design" means (and the author doesn't either). But I know that computing minimalism, even if it's not formally defined, has some specific targets and design concerns, which its adherents identify with (e.g. the UNIX philosophy, KISS, Worse is Better, and so on).

Second, Gemini failed to be small, because it result in "large codebases, many in the one to ten thousand lines of code range", really?

Compared to a modern browser or anything similar, those are microscopic. If that's what Gemini resulted it, it's a resounding success from that aspect.

>can be quantifiably observed to make expression incredibly difficult

Really? Quantify it for us then please...
These 2 might not be the best examples, because "auto" and "foreach" are, without doubt, among the important improvements of C++ 2011.

There are many other more obscure new C++ features, whose usefulness is doubtful.

Having to write again the type, when the type is already provided by an initialization value, does not provide any kind of useful redundancy.

The word "auto" is also redundant, but there is no way to eliminate it without breaking the traditional syntax.

"foreach" also provides a long-needed simplification. It makes no sense to waste time with writing iteration limits and also expressions with either pointers or indices for accessing the elements of a data aggregate, when all these are things that the compiler knows better.

When C (1974) introduced its more powerful "for" syntax, instead of the traditional "for" with arithmetic progressions, that was a partial mistake.

The C "for" allows 2 features that were not available with traditional "for", assigning to multiple loop variables (using the comma operator) and other loop variable updating operations besides addition/subtraction, e.g. indirect addressing through pointer links.

Nevertheless, these 2 features are needed infrequently, but the programmer is forced in 99% of the cases, when a simple "for" is needed, to write a lot of redundant information in comparison with the traditional "for" (e.g. "for i in 0 to 100 by 3 do" vs. "for (i = 0; i < 100; i += 3) {" ) (with traditional "for", the most frequent simpler loops can be written in a simplified way, e.g. "for i to 100 do", when the initial value is 0 and the increment is 1, while in the corresponding C "for" you can only replace "+= 3" by "++").

For the 2 special cases, a better syntax could be found, without altering the syntax for the common case. At around the time when C was developed, the concept of iterators was introduced in Alphard and CLU, which is a better solution than the extended syntax of the C "for".

Introducing "foreach" in C++ 2011, has corrected a mistake dating from C 1974, by providing a simple syntax for the simple common case, so that the complex syntax can be used only when really needed.

The correction is not total, because there still are many "for" loops that cannot be written with "foreach" but which C "for" is still an overkill, e.g. the loops that access multiple arrays.

Nevertheless, not using "foreach" nowadays would be a weird choice (notwithstanding the fringe cases with RHS functions returning references to temporaries, which were discussed on HN some time ago).
Yes, Mastodon has recently been discussing this. https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/issues/2777
They haven’t paid that much for well over a decade. If you’ve failed to take a hint by now and are still keeping all your savings in a bank account, you have no one to blame but yourself.
Oh...man...DOTA w3 and DOTA2. When ever I hear people talking about "having to deal with toxic community of X game" my mind immediately thinks "you probably haven't played DOTA".
They're not using all the features for rational reasons in the first place! It's a rat race, plane and simple.
The underlying issue is "accessing a computer system you know (or should know) you shouldn't be accessing".

Ad blockers operate on your own equipment and network and don't involve accessing any other systems.

"Anonymous browsing" isn't clearly defined enough to analyze. If it was something like "We don't allow connections via Tor", and you used Tor to connect anyways, this concept would apply (especially if you attempted to bypass technical controls, or intentionally disguised the traffic).
Exactly, the acronyms should be viewed as tools for the interviewer, not as trivia for the interviewee to know. Asking the interviewee to explain ACID or SOLID is fine, but if they don't know the acronyms that shouldn't be an instant fail, it just means the interviewer has to put in a little more effort. The interviewer should go deeper and say "Given we're using this data to do this, which of the options of the MongoDB insert should we use?" or for SOLID, show them a piece of code and ask "What criticism do you have for this code? How would you refactor it?".

Given how some people study for these interviews, you might be better off going deep either way, to avoid getting rehearsed answers on these trivia questions.
I skimmed the article but I didn't see any examples of this being exploited... Has anybody done a proof of concept on how Bidi can be used? I'm having trouble thinking of a line of code with a comment or literal where the code is legit forwards but malicious backwards.
Upcoming Intel GPU to be compatible with ARM
?? I don't see where you said "people care".

While dbcooper's comment mentions "No one cares", I believe that's specifically that employers don't care.

I believe that because dbcooper's comment was in response to your previous comment 'When you apply for a promotion and they ask ...' and your earlier 'If you're employed as a researcher...'.

No one disagrees with the anodyne statement that "people care". I know people who are not employed (eg, retired) and do peer review even though there is no possible career advancement involved.
My least favourite example of bad C++ change is deprecating and removing the overload of `std::random_shuffle` that doesn't require a new random device and a random function [1].

Sure, that version was cryptographically insecure, but 95% of the use cases of shuffling have nothing to do with cryptography and don't need to be secured. This is not a case like PHP's `mysql_query` which has an easy replacement: now you must declare an `std::random_device` and `std::mt19937` and pass them to your functions.

This nearly made me fail a job interview in an embarrassing way.

[1] https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/algorithm/random_shuffle
Just to play the devil's advocate for a moment here, I've seen many developers join and instead of learning what is around and why it's there, just see everything that existed before they joined as a Bad Decision that Needs To Change To Fit My Expectations. In complex situations sometimes the best solution looks nothing like a textbook Best Practice.

That being said, what you're describing sounds like a shit show. I've seen many talented developers stay way too long at bad places, telling themselves they can make things better.
Not really, they remain fast enough, there’s just no easy way to scale them past a certain point. Or there wasn’t anyway, I believe with spanner and CockroachDB we’re getting pretty close.

But 99% of projects do not come even close to the scale where you need that.
There are very few RDBMS usecases where scale is a legitimate performance concern. Index scans scale to a very, very high cardinality.

There are use cases that aren’t best suited to an RDBMS at any scale, like managing a collection of denormalized documents, or a graph. But in my experience, considering these factors isn’t what’s motivating adoption of Mongo, or Dynamo. Your key lookups will always be fast (until you get a hot shard), but when you cram a highly relational set into a document db, eventually you’re forced to realize that there’s a lot of mutations and access patterns that you simply can’t implement, because you chose the wrong tool for the job.

Either that or you’ll decide that it’s a good idea to implement your own concurrency control mechanism on top of your document database. Which I’ve personally seen at least 3 people try and do.
Part of the logistics improvements over the decades is "just-in-time" delivery at multiple stages, from raw materials to store delivery. The pandemic knocked that out of whack resulting in supply chain issues. The cost of mitigating that in the short term and longer term undoing some of the over-optimization for efficiency at the expense of robustness will be passed on to the consumer.
I stand corrected, 4:3 (16:12) is already available in the app just wasn't thinking right lol. So Sidecar scaling is supported as of now.
Stop Telling Kids They’ll Die from Climate Change
iPhones, Apple Watches Could Detect Car Crash, Auto-Dial 911 Starting Next Year
Well in the case in question is a US case, based on US Law, and using CFAA to get around the 1st amendment is indeed scary and should be given more weight than a causal dimssial of "well we hate censorship but...." which calls in the question if you really even hate censorship... I have my doubts

Beyond that this is CLEARLY a bad reading of CFAA, recent US Supreme Court rulings have shown they would prefer a narrow reading of the law instead of a broad one so I hope the lower court recognizes this and shots LinkedIn Down.
What would you do with the compute power?

There are some ways to correct for field inhomogeneity, but there are also fundamental limits like shorter signal lifetimes (or analogously bandwidth requirements) in inhomogeneous fields that you can't really get around.

It's always possible there will be some advance, but I'm not aware of compute power as any real bottleneck
Rethinking Climate Change
> It would be a scam, except academics could easily disrupt it and they (mostly) choose not to.

Oh really? Tell me more about how I can publish in journals with low or nonexistanet (conventional) impact factors and still meet my department’s promotion criteria, or convince an NIH review panel that my publication has high impact, visibility, and citation metrics.

Your post presupposes that the solution is so simple when in fact the whole system is perversely incentivized, tragedy of the commons style, and that there isn’t some game theory all locking us in to place.
You owe employers zero loyalty because they have zero loyalty for you.
Do your best not to make the people mad but feel no guilt about leaving.
Edited typo
I don't envy the contestants. I think 1,200 entries is so many that the organizers can't even glance at most of them; there had to be a peer review process.

There were 5 winners. Your odds of winning were less than half a percent.

When submitting to a contest, you have no idea how many submissions there will be. With this many, and the processes around it, your submission WILL most likely be lost in the noise.

Indeed, many, many very good submissions will be lost in the noise.

At the same time, these kinds of videos take obscene amounts of time to prepare.

It's depressing to throw weeks of your heart and soul into something, only to have no one look at it.
I settle on Parsec, if you can't tweak the quality to your liking in the gui you can pass custom encoder settings as well.
It's a fine way of doing it, although certainly it shouldn't be the only algorithms question.

It's a simple data structures / algorithms question. Can you think in terms of how data is stored in memory? Do you understand the tradeoffs of storing data in one form or another? Can you work with recursive algorithms? Given a challenge of having to think about data in a form you haven't recently, can you wrap your mind around the characteristics of that data structure?

If you're getting asked all this for a ReactJS UI building job, then the interviewer is probably off-base. But otherwise, make sure you're applying for jobs you're suited for. If you don't want a job where coming up with efficient algorithms is important, that's fine - there's plenty of others out there.
Apple has already launched apps and services to improve exercise using their watch (complete your circles etc).

A blood glucose monitor on the watch would likely not just print a number, it would be integrated with the existing exercise programs. Adding an option to track food would not be hard.

In other words the headline would likely not be “Apple adds glucose sensor,” it would be “Apple launches comprehensive diabetes management service” likely in partnership with some academic or healthcare name you’ve heard of.

Imagine if people could buy an Apple Watch and online service with their health insurance, or Medicare.
I asked this once as a take home for an interview. First, I copied the first hit for “implement binary tree in C” from google. I made sure it compiled and then deleted the implementation of the insert method. That was the take home. I wanted to know that the applicant could reimplement this one missing function and compile the project and not get immediately stuck.