skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
"It demands a brutal honesty that risks discouraging young recruits, but this is how the best of the best operate." and "To tell people of the dangers in no uncertain terms, to take a chainsaw to their ideas" are the passages I take issue with.

That sure sounds like a gauntlet, like putting someone through the wringer just because.

You can be supportive without cutting people down. A community doesn't have to be all cat fights and proving yourself to each other. It can just be helpful.

I'm glad you're not planning on doing it that way, but your words suggest otherwise. Just something to keep an eye on.
I resisted posting my pet peeve because it's not really the point of the OP, but now I can't help it. Let me explain...

http://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=%22let+me+e...

The fact that there is more text in a comment let's the reader know more explainin' is on the way. No need to point out that you're about to elaborate. Are people worried we'll get to the end of their paragraph and not know if the next paragraph is related?
Compromised Linode & coins stolen from slush, faucet and others
I bought and read SEAL Team Six: Memoirs of an Elite Navy SEAL Sniper. In it, the author says that all snipers need to have a really strong faith, philosophy, or something like that to guide them so that they don't lose control of themselves and get intoxicated by the power. When you have someone in your scope, you really can feel like God, the decision to kill or let live is yours. He says that's why it was so easy for someone like the Washington sniper to get carried away and go on a killing spree. If you don't have something strong in you to guide you and keep you under control, you'll go wild, in his opinion.
I agree, part of the difficulty comes in when people use such statements not to soften the blow to the people they are communicating to but to soften any negative reaction people are going to inflict on them for a negative or criticizing statement.

It is then easy for some people to read such a statement as "I want to make a rude statement, but not have people treat me as having just said something rude." or even "I want to hurt you, but not have people hurt me in response."

The nature of text only communication with long turn around time means it is often for some to tell in between the two situations above. This is especially so for anyone who goes out of there way to blur the lines between the two.
Additional coverage:
http://www.oregonlive.com/small-business/index.ssf/2012/03/p...
I think it's just an acknowledgement of the ambiguity of tone in the written word and of the tendency of people to always take away the most offensive interpretation of the comment.

Some people use it as a preface to cushion their unfiltered invective, but it's in everyone's interest to give people the benefit of the doubt in recognition of the ambiguity in what we say.
To anyone currently developing scripts to analyse comments on HN, please also consider use of unqualified opinions presented as fact. Statements such as "most", "a lot", "many" and "no one" fall into this category as per [1].

It would be interesting to whether a relationship exists between karma and excessive use of "most", "a lot", etc.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_vie...
Douglas Adams' final, and posthumously finished and published book, The Salmon of Doubt, discusses in depth the great utility of the phrase "it turns out".
357 things HN users are "just sayin"

http://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=%22just+say...
If AWS Platinum support is equivalent, then yes, it certainly makes more sense to go with them and save the money. All things being equal, I'm still much more inclined to patronize a business whose company culture is centered around customer service than one who offers it exclusively as a premium feature.
There's data about a lot of gang members entering the service these days and receiving a lot of military training, but then taking that training back to the gang (as well as smuggling some weapons). If it's reliable data, I wonder if the number of sociopaths in the military could be growing, if it's also possible that gang members have a higher probability of being sociopaths. A lot of conditionals there, I know.
It might have been too much effort to set up the multi-camera Vicon motion capture system at TED, calibrate it, etc.

And unless they put them inside an aviary, which would also obscure the drones, I'd be a little worried about losing control of a machine with several exposed spinning blades in an auditorium full of people.
The author is making a straw man argument, though it does not seem to be intentional (edit: I am referring to Rubinstein's original analysis). The author points out that using data for a single class and single year is not a reliable indicator (second graph). That is uncontested and exactly why ratings are based on 3 years of data and multiple classes where possible. Even this cannot provide a single, accurate percentile value. That is why confidence intervals are used and are rather prominently displayed in all the graphs; e.g. <http://www.nytimes.com/schoolbook/school/656-ps-009-teunis-g...;

Given the example above, there is one teacher who has is 50th percentile for career math, but the confidence interval (CI) indicates that this may really be anywhere from well below average to well above average. In contrast there is another teacher with a value of 3 and the highest bounds of the CI still place them well below average. Conversely there is a teacher that is 90th pctl and even the lowest bounds of the the confidence interval still makes this a highly effective teacher.

In sum, the data make evident that a few teachers are fairly unambiguously ineffective (at least with regards to test results), a few are unambiguously effective, but for the majority the most that can be said is that they are neither the best nor the worst, but somewhere in the middle.

So if you reserve yourself to making conclusions merited by the data, then there is some value to this (i.e. identifying the extremely ineffective and effective). As it stands now, the teacher with a 3 may very well have tenure and be paid considerably more that the teacher with a 90 (given that pay is a function largely of seniority and education, and nearly all teachers have tenure). That is what this exercise is meant to address.

So you definitely cannot assign a fine-grained single value to every teacher (and the authors analyses speak to that issue), but there does not mean you cannot make any conclusions at all. If folks make conclusions that exceed what is supported by the data that is a fault of the analyst or perhaps a function of poor communication or visualization, not evidence that the data is junk.

That said, the test could be improved (and supposedly are being improved) and the very least the measurements place more focus on the subjects being tested.

And the teacher effectiveness data is only 40% of the new approach to evaluating teachers in NY; the other 60% including peer evaluation. It may be useful if that became part of the public data so a more balanced picture is available; but it is unclear if that data would be public.
I wish I could agree, but I doubt it. It's a matter of state law for one, and for another,

" In this particular case, however, Judge Sacks seemed to declare Illinois' law unconstitutional not because it's a citizen's right to record interactions between the police and the public, but because the law was too far-reaching. "

i.e. the judge is saying the law is unconstitutional not because the cops should be held accountable, but because it has the potential to criminalize almost any recording made in a public place. The article in the Sun-Times linked says the legislature is trying to fix the root problem, which is good. Pisses me off to see the police unions pushing back, even though it's to be expected.
Actually it sounds more to me that he should be the one resigning instead of firing "Tom". But well perhaps as the owner of a company he can't really fire himself, so someone have to be the scrape goat which is Tom.

However, it is good that he understand that he is partly to blame too, as some startup founders I seen rather shift all the blame to someone and fire him and think of many reasons why it's not their fault at all.
So, I was a (low-ranking) employee at Beyond Oblivion. This is the first I've heard about most of those numbers and many of the extravagances. We built a killer product, that was ready for prime time, but unfortunately didn't end up selling to anyone. That's all I really knew -- we had a product, we ran out of money. It wasn't until after that we heard about all the crazy stuff that was going on. I still try to stay out of it, because it doesn't really matter anymore, but it's still interesting reading articles like this.

I read things like this all the time, but it's a completely different thing when it's actually you (or relating so closely to you). I put a lot of time and effort into the product, and my piece was something I was personally really proud of. It's really unfortunately to see it fail in such a big way. I still debate putting my involvement on my resume, even though its demise had nothing to do with me. I interviewed at a Y-Combinator company I was really interested in, and didn't get the job... I still wonder if that had anything to do with it. Anyway, nothing to say or learn from the experience really, just thought I'd say that.
>Perhaps you disagree, but you seem to be arguing against semantic interpretation of the terminology, instead of being skeptical of the results.

That's precisely what I'm saying. I don't doubt Apple's contribution to the US economy in terms of the indirect jobs that it has created, but placing it in the same category as creating direct jobs is what I don't agree with (especially since the layman usually interprets it as the latter).
I find it impressive that not only did they circumvent the security measures, but that they used their access to prevent others from doing so, AND gained access to the cameras.
Amazing how this thread took over the whole first page of results from that search.

There's a few things that are interesting about this whole thing though.

First, that HN's users are this good. Many other communities across the web eventually degrade into a news entertainment troll parties, sometimes needing to be removed in order to preserve some kind of dignity on the mother site. I'm sure there are worst things said here, but they are very much the exception.

The phrase itself also got me thinking about how people express things on the web. I imagine the majority of comments with that phrase have some malicious intent, but there is also the possibility that whatever idea the user is trying to convey is something not easily expressed in text through the internet impersonally. For example, a conversation on racial stereotypes will inherently have racist undertones, but it is entirely possible that people want to discuss it genuinely without meaning to offend people. Part of the problem is that it's very difficult to communicate things like sincerity, empathy, etc. via plaintext. Another part of the problem is that people are very...willing...to be offended... though I haven't decided how much of a role the internet plays from this angle.

One takeaway: if you aren't meaning to offend people, choose better words on the internet. It's likely the easiest way of saying something is offensive and will offend.
I've heard anecdotally that setting those css animations via JavaScript vs defining them in a stylesheet, then toggling classes in the code, yields slightly better performance. I have nothing to back that up but would be interested in hearing if other's have noticed the same thing.
Don't invest in Bitcoin? As it is, it's an extremely volatile currency. This just adds to many more reasons why I'm never investing in it.
I have managed many projects and hit deadlines and delivered to budget. The principles are simple: I would create a project plan with a granularity of 2-3 man weeks per task. I would then go and discuss the plan with the team leaders and refine the plan to the 3-5 man day task level with their input. Given the available resources I would then add 20% and come up with a target date based on a realistic starting date.

There is one very important distinction. When the requirements are unclear or non-existent, then the project could only be for the creation of the missing specification and repeat the process once the specification was signed off.

As you may guess I have had many board level meetings where the stakeholders were horrified at how long things would take. That's where the politics start. Typically somebody pulled a deadline and budget out of their a* and demanded that I make it happen. That's where being a professional is very important. They either meet my demands or I decline the project. For example, in one situation I declined a project. They brought in a succession of 5 project managers and then axed the project years late and millions over budget. If it is impossible, then no amount of table banging and shouting is going to repeal the laws of physics, etc.

You only need to read up on failed projects, like the FBI's Virtual Case File System (great write up in IEEE Spectrum), to realise that projects failing to meet deadlines are typically a result of management incompetence and rarely due to failing by the technical team - but that too does happen, especially if the specs are too loose and the team leaders fail to maintain focus.
I think "to be honest" is a euphemism for "to be blunt".

To the extent that people usually politely self-censor, yes, they're usually not being honest with you.
Concurrency is the biggest area of study and contention here.

I still think an exciting problem that hasn't received much attention is thread/process affinity.

When scheduling threads the operating system picks a logical execution unit to do the actual processing. Logical execution units have some kind of shared resource between them. Let's say we had a machine with 2 Intel Core i7-2600K in it. That computer would have 16 logical execution units (2 CPUs x 4 cores x 2 threads per core) All 16 units would share the same RAM. 8 logical units on the same CPU would share the same L3 cache. 2 logical units on the same CPU and same core would share the same L1 and L2 cache.

Now I want to apply Fast-Fourier transformation to a stereo audio signal and want to process each channel in it's own thread. When the operating system schedules those threads to run it it might be best to pick two logical execution units on the same CPU core and reschedule it there every time it executes. This would maximize hits on instruction caches and data caches, with the benefit of not polluting unnecessary caches. The opposite of this would be having the threads run on logical execution units on different CPUs and never rescheduling them to the same logical execution unit twice in a row. This would drastically reduce the likelihood of cache-hits and possibly pollute the caches of every logical execution unit.

I lost my train of thought here.
In any event. Processor affinity and scheduling are two things ripe for improvement on the operating system level. That said most modern operating systems handle SMP pretty well and there is far more improvement to be made in the userland.
Doesn't matter. Given the authoritarian manner the US federal government has been acting lately pretty much guarantees some sort of ban on recording authorities at "international events" will be in effect for Chicago G8 meeting in May. And when the shit inevitably hits the fan they'll just use the revolt as an excuse to implement similar nation-wide bans.
Chiropractor in Southsea,Physiotherapy in Portsmouth
welcom to kings road clinic The enviable location of our beautiful, modern clinic makes it best placed to serve the residents of Southsea, Portsmouth and beyond.
this is not supposed to be a "good" idea. it's a "money" idea. simple.
You may wonder, why i posted this on HN. I simply thought that this would be the first live streaming play on youtube to a big audience and they address a critical subject. In my opinion it's interesting to see what effect such an event could have to people who are watching it live and who are able to give instant feedback and how it effects the mainstream. I see great opportunities in such formats to present a critical subject to interact with the audience and last but least, the cast for this play on youtube is amazing :D
Kudos in your honesty in admitting some fault... but, why on earth, especially given your humility about the whole thing, did you fire him in the middle of the day and make him do a "walk of shame?" A senior employee who has done good work in the past deserves a little more respect than that.

Not saying he didn't ned to be let go, but there's various degrees of letting someone go and the "clean out your desk now" approach is by far the most brutal and punitive.

That's what you do to someone caught embezzling money, not a solid individual who just proved not to be a good match for the team.
Thanks for the feedback! Yes I'm manually entering the frames. With the variety of comic styles and the way the frames are bordered, I'm not sure there would be any easy way to write an algorithm that automates this task. But I'm pretty darn fast at Photoshop and it takes me about 15 seconds in all to copy the url, note the number of frames, and crop out/export the first frame.

Regarding a user account system, that's definitely on my feature list. This site is just the result of a weekend of coding, so I just wanted to see if it would garner interest first before investing more time to add more robust functionality.
the word obvious comes from ob + via, in other words something blocking the path (to understanding)

Are you sure it meant blocking understanding? I thought it was more like "in front of you", as in "you can't miss it".

According to http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=obvious, the original meaning was "commonplace", i.e. something you're likely to encounter along the way, and the modern meaning "evident" doesn't appear until the 1630s.
But the employees labor 60 hours a week, you can essentially count them as 1.5 employees.
Your approach only seems to work in organisations where they are prepared to let go off the "Big Bang" release approach. In my experience, large organisations are less likely to go with your approach.

If they want a deadline, you can always count the number of cards left in the stack, and say num cards x weeks. If they're unhappy then you say: "pull out the cards you don't want delivered".
Paralipsis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paralipsis), or parasiopesis or præteritio as it was called when I was in school, means something very like what you describe.
Lytro Camera and Apple
Why don't visitors to Disneyland come down with Mickey Mouse syndrome? Behold, I am the MOUSE! Mine enemies shall say 'eek' and flee under the fridge, and reside there in eternal darkness with the cock-a-roaches and the vile festering sardine sandwich!

What is interesting about this is how stories can take over and give a singular cohesion to madness that would otherwise be lacking from the normal confusion and lack of direction attendant to that unfortunate condidion.

I use the word 'stories' loosely - as the article notes, the effect can be produced by architecture, paintings, possibly even music.

Maybe Hitler was suffering from Siegfried syndrome. His gestures seem to have been lifted wholesale from opera, and the cadences of his ravings seem to map well onto Wagner's music.
Except that in most "real" two-factor systems, you can't duplicate the second factor easily. The problem here is if the private key is in main memory, malware can copy it to another computer that will be indistinguishable (for the purposes of authentication) from the first. With something like a smartcard that is made much more difficult. Not impossible, but beyond the reach of most folks.
Necessary Evil? Random House Triples Prices Of Library E-Books
It is just like signing certificates for servers of any type but the subject is you.

I recommend using P12 as most browsers will 'just get it'. With Nginx for example, you can build in SSL support and then configure a directive to request a client cert at which point the web browser will load a relevant certificate to choose to pass along. More so, Nginx can be configured to extract information from the client certificate and use it as variables.

http://wiki.nginx.org/HttpSslModule#ssl_client_certificate
http://wiki.nginx.org/HttpSslModule#Built-in_variables

So one can have ssl.awesome.io and extract info to only allow 'Joe231' to see ssl.awesome.io/Joe231. Even better is by serial or what have you.

Now my 2 cents on the problem; it confuses people, revocation and issuance. I'm guessing here DoD had certificates built into our ID cards and that was extracted with the reader at a need. Not sure, just a guess. Personally I think the cryptic nature that is command line Openssl is what slows down the mob from pushing new tech unto everyone. Think about it. Some comments present are disappointing for hacker news; you should be playing with cryptic technologies and making them work.

Want a startup idea? Plop certs into AXE body spray cans and done.

oh looky what Wikipedia cited: http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/pfx.html
SourceTree beats the pants of any other git UI I've ever used - on Mac, Linux, or Windows.
There was a great line in the old TV show Pretender along the lines of "It's my observation that anybody who begins a sentence "with all due respect" typically doesn't have it"

I've always interpreted prefaces like that (along with its relatives "with all due respect" or the suffix "I'm just saying") as a way of turning the sentence into "This is an objective observation that should be made; don't blame the messenger". Used well it's a good way to strip subjectivity from some objective facts, used poorly it's a good way to project a subjective interpretation onto objective facts.
Udemy’s Faculty Project nabs 50,000 students and an Ivy league professor
$500,000 for branding the name BOINC and everyone outside hate it. That marketing firm has done a heck of sales job.

Burned through $20 million of its $33.2 million in the final ten months, less than $1 million of which was paid to employees. I wonder what's the justification for such spending ratio.
Nothing in that article makes me think "promising" was ever an accurate description for Beyond Oblivion. The idea itself sounds completely horrendous from every angle.
Anonymous declares war on religion
I think the message Apple is trying to get across is identical to the standard usage of the terms, which is to measure the effect of Apple on US employment. Do you really think they are trying to trick people with (standard) terminology? Direct employment numbers are in every quarterly report, do you think they were hoping the lazy Apple press would overlook a huge employment increase?

And, if you read the page (which is a hundred times more detailed than the average "create or support" release), Apple makes it pretty darn clear how the numbers break down, direct/indirect. If Apple was less clear, we wouldn't even be having this conversation because we'd just be wondering about it without enough information to form opinions.

Forthcomingness is the new dishonesty, I guess. :)
I know a bunch of amateur basketball players who try to do precisely this. They know they'll never be Jordan, but they do practice pretty hard, much harder than I'd ever expect.
More prevalent form is to fight dementia(ADHD in adolescents too) and best of remembering - peoples names. Its doesn't have to be difficult with initials.
It inculcates an outspoken and interactive mind.
A. know more Tv personality and even personalities in your cultural community.

Meditation and breathing exercises bring a general sense of awareness. Meeting peoples brings the same.