skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
This part:

I am not saying don't interview people. I'm just saying when you do it, assume all the signals and readings you're getting from your candidate are janky as hell, because they are. Lots of strong performers can't do their best thinking and judging when they're conflicted and anxious. Compensate.

It hits me straight in the heart. I get very, very nervous at interviews. For no fucking reason whatsoever. My mind goes blank. Last one I did (more than a year ago), the person told me that I was obviously not prepared to work under pressure. But I can. Hell, I own and run 4 businesses. Pressure is what's for breakfast. The issue is that interviews are focused on trying to get me to fail, rather than letting me impress you. Which is the reason I am so successful as a freelancer. As an independent, all I need to do is show you my portfolio, talk about your needs, and get on to coding. There is no interview. There is, however, a trial period where I show you what I'm capable of.

Its just strange. I'm building a search engine, and have built 3 lead generation applications. Yet for some fucking reason, I flunk interviews, and people won't hire me to write coldfusion. Still, can't complain. I make 5 times as much. Without having to deal with a dumb manager.
Eh, it's kind of like saying "I'm grateful that the hospital staff made me well instead of carelessly and greedily making my condition worse".

I think many people in this thread are forgetting that Google is a conglomeration of different people, opinions, etc., and it may not be as easily defined as the paranoid attributions given to the tangential predictions of one of its executives.
Nope. Get going.
I suspect that part of the problem is that many people working on programming projects no longer feel like they are making the world a better place. Many of the world-changing ideas have been implemented. For many people, what is left but to continually optimize what already exists?
As a curiosity I added one to compare against spine as well.

http://jsperf.com/backbone-vs-john-resig-class/9

However, since most of the time I'm using spine via coffeescript the inheritance is going to be done slightly different.
We really don't do anything without it making us "feel good" on some fundamental level. Motivation/intrinsic reward for behavior goes to the very core of our being as self-directed organisms. So asking "how is donating any less selfish than not donating" is asking the wrong question. We have evolved to take pleasure in behaviors that are beneficial to ourselves. One who is selfish will take pleasure in things that are solely beneficial to him or herself. One who is unselfish has a reward system that is aligned with the benefit of others. So when we say someone is a "good person" or "unselfish", we are really judging the alignment of their reward system as being more suitable for a social environment.

As an aside, note that this way of thinking is compatible with determinism: while the murderer may not have any more control over his anti-social behavior than the altruist, the person is condemned for having a brain wired in such a way that is toxic to a collectivist society.
Yes, plus the fact that there is a time period where you are not as productive as possible, because you do not know the current codebase. Hell, you don't even know the requirements that well either.
That sounds like New York City.
That night marked the beginning of a transformation for the battalion of soldiers. ... Sleepy midnight chow became a teeming communion of comrades ...

In this case a meal was the center of a transformation,
but could another popular shared recurring
activity have worked?

Say, for startups, a game room, or a pizza and trivia night?
I used <yourcompanynamehere>@hirevito.com for the longest time, with hirevito.com being a job/resume-specific domain (my personal domains are vi.to and vitor.io).

Spammy recruiters would often send it to that literal address, "yourcompanynamehere@", which garnered them an immediate rejection for a lack of attention to detail.

Otherwise, it necessitated excessive customization and triple-checking of every resume I sent out to make sure I didn't goof on the mailto. It wasn't worth it.

I eventually moved to specific technologies or skill sets, e.g. drupal@, ux@, and that seemed to be lower maintenance.
London, UK. Full time lead web application developer.

Podaris is a funded startup that will change the way cities are designed. We're creating an online collaborative planning and design platform for next-generation Automated Transit Networks. Think TinkerCAD for future transport systems. Yes, there's a market for this: we've received our first seed investment and will soon receive more. I honestly don't think there's a more exciting use for Javascript on the planet.

I'm looking for a technical co-founder / CTO / lead developer. Job description and more can be found at http://www.podaris.com/

Unfortunately, as a startup, it is difficult for us to accommodate international relocations, so you must be an EU citizen or have a valid UK work permit.
As an employer, shouldn't you seek to hire team members that have a strong passion for your company's mission? I understand many people want jobs for the pay but I think this is a very important question.

"Why do you want to dedicate the next few years of your life working on this instead of something else?" If the answer is just because it pays more or the company is in a better location I think most employers would want to keep looking for someone that has different motivations.
Ah, the owners are the 'bridge to Canada' family: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4695608
Why not use that 2 hour commute to learn a new language? Pop in some audio of sentences, grammar, and vocab words. I'm sure you can find plenty of audio resources for new languages online, and start learning!

Everyone is so set on coding for their personal projects. Why not explore other areas like learning a new language, and expand your skills.
My standard answer to this, assuming I am starting out with a normal job-posting's worth of information, is "I don't know that I do want to work at X yet. That's one of the things I hope to figure out in this process." Said nicely, of course.

People forget that an interview is a dialog between two parties. As a candidate I am not trying to "win" by getting an offer; I am trying to find out if this is a place I actually want to work.
By their nature, almost all economic transactions in a free market system are mutually beneficial to both parties or the transaction wouldn't take place. That does not mean that many companies do not make short-sighted decisions that harm themselves, their industry, and customers over the long term.

Here is a small list of examples which might serve as examples where decisions eventually hurt the company itself rather than only customers:

- early refusals to sell music, movies or television shows online

- highly inconvenient DRM strategies

- "closed software is more secure", and other non transparent practices

- cost cutting measures by manufacturers that reduce a product's durability in ways that are not obvious in the store

Google could monetize the information they can mine from their users more aggressively. They could also more actively depart from standards, such as by removing IMAP access to Gmail or requiring some proprietary plugin for Youtube. We'd be worse off, and Google would lose a lot of users and ad-viewing eyeballs. That still doesn't mean that it is a given that they would make these decisions. Facebook seems to have little reluctance when it comes to changing user agreements in non-obvious ways for the purpose monetizing their data, I switched from Yahoo mail to Gmail eight or nine years just because of IMAP, and Microsoft tried to push Silverlight for video content.

Even in the case of a cooperative game where mutually beneficial choices can be determined, that outcome is not always the result. What's wrong with being grateful that Google (at least some of the time) has apparently chosen such strategies? Claims that their benefit is somehow at the expense of users confuses the situation with noncooperative games, and suggests that Google would be better off not making the decisions that have benefited users, too.
UK business secretary: Google should police the internet
I know exactly how you feel about seeing the books you never have time to read... http://sdrv.ms/10HTsYs
no, just oxbridge. in terms of prestige and difficulty of admission Edinburgh is well below other non-oxbridge universities...
The thing is, in context of the whole quote, this is all about illegal activity very specifically. The larger point was that Google isn't allowed to be a confidential friend of yours by law, even if it wanted to be. You think Schmidt isn't aware of MLK and the "it gets better" campaign? You can take any sentence out of context and make a person seem cruel and unthinking.
"if this person gets promoted, they won't get more pay than otherwise when they're doing overtime a certain day" ?

-- yes, because they will be a regular salaried ("exempt") employee.

"by hours in a week, month?"

I think there is a daily threshold, and a weekly threshold, for overtime. I don't think there is anything else. But I don't figure the pay, so I don't know the ins and outs.

*

Where I work, you have to justify overtime, so in effect the employee was prevented from moving work hours between days unless the resulting increase in effective wage could be justified. ("Feeling in the zone" is not enough...)
The real problem with interviews, as shown in the very first question is that they're setup for you to tell the interviewer what they want to hear. Interviews can often go one of two ways, the way where you're honest or the way where you lie. The folks you're trying to hire are smart enough to tell you what you want to hear about company culture, smart enough to blag about commerical experience they don't really have, and smart enough to realise being honest didn't get them the job when they tried it.

Theres only a couple of things that actually matter when you're hiring: a) do you trust the guy; b) do you think he can do the job; c) how hard will he work. Unfortunately a) is based on feeling, c) is nearly impossible to gauge but you can probably workout b) from a decent technical interview. Using anything else as a qualifier will open you up to deceit and really doesn't have a lot of place in your trade of skills for money, unless you're trying to create the type of company where people don't go home, in that case hire them young and dumb.

For the record, I have a personality but like 90% of the adult population, I'm a fairly decent person, can talk to pretty much anyone and can easily find common ground with most people. If you have a company culture that honestly forbids that, you've probably accidently hired a few asshats and that's probably something you want to kill rather than grow.

Wish the OP all the best though. :)
So basically I feel the same way, having had several HN accounts over the years, and feeling totally disenfranchised as a voter, except that I think if more normal people said more normal, boring, nuanced, middle of the road type things about politics then the people having fights with each other wouldn't be so annoying, because they are a tiny fraction of the population. I understand this is a bit of a pipe dream, and it's frustrating when that tiny fraction dominates the conversation. It's just difficult to want to participate at all when people prioritize winning an argument over understanding the issues at hand.
> So, you mean that if US drug companies made more money abroad, they would decide to make less money than they possibly can in the US?

You're right that a drug company will always charge as much as it can, so the US price of a drug will not be affected by the price it can charge elsewhere. However, the chance a drug is developed in the first place is dependant on the total size of the market for that drug. If the potential profit for, say, a breast cancer cure is $300 billion rather than $100 billion then there is more chance that a cure will be found.
There are certainly careers in which getting started at age 30 is unlikely to bring success (gymnast, child actor), but computer science/engineering is most certainly not one of them.

You may find that when you get out of school, you don't find a lot of resonance interviewing with 20-something year olds at startups, but contrary to what it seems like here, those people are the vast minority.

It's also entirely possible that after finishing up a degree in CS you find that you don't want to actually work as a professional programmer. That's also fine (it's hard to tell what you might still find interesting in 4 years, and hopefully a big part of your education will be in gaining exposure to things you might not have otherwise thought about).

I'd say if you find CS interesting, and have the ability to pursue a CS education (which not everyone does), than go for it.
And before you compare per-capita costs of the piecemeal US public system to those of the entire UK NHS system. The limited public system in the US is typically caring for a patient in a older demographic (medicare), and some portion of people on disability, and war vets (if you include the VA). All of which might be expected to carry a higher need for medical care then the entire UK demographic. Essentially, it pulls a higher cost slice of patients in the US off the private healthcare systems books - and even at that comparisons that I've looked at seem to point to the private system being some multiple of 50-300% more expensive than public health system.
I guess there's no reason for Microsoft to decouple their browser from their OS, I guess....
PostgresSQL generate_series and array_agg with Rails' find_by_sql
List of Android Appstores
Isn't the idea to be happy during the journey? I'm following about the same path and can't find balance.

If ever there were an economic problem in need of solving, it would be the friction between how people spend their time (i.e., slaving away on a particular type of task) and how they could be spending it (becoming enlightened and happy, maybe because the ability to live is not tied to slaving away on a task).
Easier said than done - your advice sounds a bit like http://www.theonion.com/articles/find-the-thing-youre-most-p....

I can't imagine how exhausting four hours of commuting per day must be.
I'd love to see Racket "feel" doable to young and old alike who aren't computer scientists.

A visual redesign could help. Especially a redesign of the IDE user interface. But first some fun examples to inspire people would be best IMHO.

To find this project ASK the people you're trying to reach. Listen. Then find a young person who's game. Ask them if they'd make a project with Racket and write a blog post about it. There's nothing like getting inspiration from your peers. This blog post may already exist. In other words the people who are beginners need to help reach other beginners.

Or what about Try Racket? https://github.com/voila/try-racket Is this project running online somewhere?

The power of Macros with the ease of Processing would truly be a powerful thing!
There's a more in-depth article on this here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jun/24/usa.science

I suppose the reassuring thing is that it took two fairly smart people a significant amount of time, and that was without management giving them too much agro, and with the ability to run experiments more or less as they pleased via asking their supervisors to run the tests and getting the results back.

'They were to explain at length, on paper, what part of their developing design they wanted to test, and they would pass it, through an assigned lab worker, into Livermore's restricted world. Days later, the results would come back - though whether as the result of real tests or hypothetical calculations, they would never know.'

(Quote taken from the Guardian article.)
At first I thought this article was how to use processing and racket together (headline) but it seems that it advocates for the use of racket and possibly for it to have richer documentation.

I have been using processing for many years and there are many different ways people get into the language: 1) through artists and their works, think Casey Reas, Aaron Koblin and the tutorials by Daniel Shiffman. 2) through specific use cases like, I want to hook up my kinect and do x. 3) it is taught in may experimental arts and datavis classes / tutorials. and 4) lore, I have heard from many people "processing seems like a good fit for x" 5) an so on.

I think where processing excels or has exceled in the past is being able to quickly pick up more experimental bits of code and libraries in Java / C++ and put a simpler syntax in front of them. People often say, processing is really just java. And to be specfic, it is just a preprocessor and an api/library (core.jar) for Java. The processing IDE is okay for beginners but most people that get serious with it move to an external text editor or IDE like Eclipse.

In my opinion it is not the simplified Java syntax that makes it great to work with it is the philosophy that drives the api. It is very easy to start drawing shapes in just one line of code. They create duplicate methods so you can pass in ints, floats or another datatype without resorting to casting.

There are also a bunch of offshoots, processing.js, ruby processing, etc. which are pretty exciting. Often the way the api is ported is not the best fit for the new host language. I have played with a bunch of these and they are fun but they seem to not get the kind of traction the main processing project does.

I think if you are wanting to advocate racket more effectively you should look at the historical linage of processing (design by numbers, data visualization by ben fry, etc.) and you will see why so many of the learning/documentation focuses on things that interest designers and artists. If you want to do the same for Racket, get some artists to do some awesome work. Then have them document it, break it apart and share it. I think this is how such a large community has sprung up around processing and why so many projects continue to use it today.

The other project that works really well with processing/js is toxiclibs/js. You should consider porting it if you want to draw in some of the newer crowd.
Why does this guy get so much traction on here?
Have you considered a sale of the business?
>Come on folks, let's think up a better primary waking activity for the average person than "attach yourself to someone else's dreams, and help build their wealth, at the expense of your own intellectual freedom and sanity."

Part of the reason that efforts to do this have cooled down some is that the previous attempts didn't go so well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Internationale
Microsoft owns about 90% of the desktop market, 30%+ of the server market and 25%+ of active gaming consoles. Right now.
Show HN: Developments on the Star Trek / Jarvis computer
Socialism is about attaching yourself to the community (or usually the Politburo's) 5-year dream for production. Doesn't have anything to do with individual freedom.

In the 21st century, there is little valid reason to coordinate production centrally - it's inefficient and causing industries to bumble along, generally. The direction now is to automate production and have universal minimum income that can be used for competitive purchasing of goods and services. Sounds like a market economy to me.
I hired Marco for his first job (at Vivisimo which I co-founded). He didn't do particularly well (I don't think being a regular employee fits him) but he did work on some things that he ended up leveraging later on at Tumblr and for Instapaper. He actually left because his girlfriend wanted to move to NY. He had a low GPA in college and we hired him because he did a lot of things outside college (like writing his own games) and that impressed us.

I would have never guessed that he would do so well after leaving and that let's me wonder how many Marcos there are out there doing average jobs in average companies. Out of 200 employees that we hired before being acquired by IBM more than a dozen went on to create their own companies - none yet as successful as Marco's.
>In test-driven development the mantra has always been, red, green, refactor. Write a failing test and run it (red), make the test pass (green), then refactor it (that is look at the code and see if you can make it any better. In this case you will need to run the koan and see it fail (red), make the test pass (green), then take a moment and reflect upon the test to see what it is teaching you and improve the code to better communicate its intent (refactor).

While the above was quoted from the Ruby koans, I would have thought a Lisp author would have corrected the unbalanced parentheses. Am I unusual in finding unbalanced parentheses in English text very distracting? It must be something like my borderline OCD.
I want to agree with you - I really would like to find out what that activity is.

But, if people aren't willing to "attach themselves to other people's dreams and help build their wealth", how are people going to work together enough to build bigger things than they can build on their own?

It seems like a catch-22 - perhaps the the balance is working with people who care about your intellectual freedom and sanity?
I thought they just did logos, but I'll take a second look. I'll probably end up needing about 100 icons, so this may end up being too expensive for me. Thanks!
I'm interested as-well. At least in sentiment analysis. Library name, anything~
> Many of the world-changing ideas have been implemented. For many people, what is left but to continually optimize what already exists?

This sounds unimaginative to the point of absurdity.
Turkish Police Starts Using Chemical Gas (Agent Orange) Against Protesters
I do three hours a day (1.5 hours each way) from a Chicago suburb to downtown, 5 days a week. It's exhausting.
We're a small team, and we prefer that everyone be in the same place most of the time.
i'd be interested in a similar salary survey in austin...
This is a big part of the reason I support the idea of a "basic income" system.

I believe there are lots of people out there not wired for dealing with the politics or immediate-results stress of the VC system but who are self-directed, interested and motivated enough to work on big problems, but whose energy is destroyed by having to deal with the immense bullshit inherent in modern office-style software development to make money to pay the bills. As a society I believe we would be better off if these people were free to go live in some cheap cost of living area while just doing their thing and contributing to the commons in the form of open source or taking what they eventually create and marketing it (if it is marketable when complete) in order to generate wealth on top of their basic income.

I believe the same would hold for non-software creative jobs as well.

But, of course, I'm not holding my breath for this to happen.
There's a catch. While it's trivial to design a gun-type bomb (Little Boy), it's very difficult to produce weapon grade uranium for it. As for implosion-type bomb (Fat Man), it's relatively easy to get a hold of plutonium, but the design is extremely complex.
Thank you for perfectly describing my thoughts.
Thanks for the help with that.

Apparently he doesn't even have a Wikipedia page.

His own website says "I'm a hacker, entrepeneur, anarcho-crypto-geek, and drug policy reformer. I'm a cofounder of Heroku and a board member at the Marijuana Policy Project. In the past I've made video games, electronic music, and Burning Man art installations. I like Norse mythology and things that glow."

The only thing that stands out I guess is "cofounder of Heroku", but that's not very informative. Was he someone of special import at Heroku... will the service die without him?

So... right back at you. Can you come back when you have something useful to say?