skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I don't see how comparing the salary of developers and recruiters is any more meaningful than comparing the salary of college professors and plumbers or the Weis stock boy and a junior VC associate.

If someone has been getting offers and interviews for $60k positions and a recruiter can get them an $80k position, what does it matter to the developer if the recruiter gets $20, $40 or even $80k on top of that? I think with the right incentives recruiting can help everyone involved. The problem is when the incentives aren't aligned. If a company is giving Recruiter A $100k to find a developer no matter what, A's incentive is to push the developer's salary as low as possible. If Recruiter B gets a lump sum of 50% of the first year salary, B is going to fight for an extra few thousand dollars on my bottom line.

I'm on the opposite side of the country so it's very possible the recruiters in the Valley are leeches like they appear to be based on the general consensus on HN. My experience with them has been varied, from the former classmate with a degree in Fine Art suddenly trying to learn the difference between Java and JavaScript to someone who actually knows what they're talking about.
"The thought of paying someone I was forced to fire because he (or she) is incompetent burns me up inside."

I think we all hate working with incompetents, but if someone working for you is just simply not competent for the job they were hired for, that's more your fault for hiring them in the first place than their fault, IMO.

And if you're running a company and you hire enough incompetents for this to be an ongoing issue of frustration for you, that would seem to point to you being incompetent yourself.
CSS Tip: A Better Clearfix with Sass
A lot of those bond schemes were undertaken because overly generous pension promises had left the governments in a situation of having to meet unreasonable growth targets in order to meet their obligations. A lot of the craziness in 2008 was the result of pension fund managers struggling to recoup the losses of 2001 and get back on track.
Agreed, and sadly the lack of that coming to fruition has not stopped them.
Lots of cities had race riots in the 60s. Lots of cities were rough during the crack epidemic, too. Most are doing great these days.

Looking past the collapse of the auto industry (which coincided with the greatest population decline in 2000-2010), to riots 50 (!) years ago as the sole reason for decline strikes me as having the answer in mind before hearing the question. YMMV.
Is there a chance to revive the automobile industry?
http://yudkowsky.net/singularity/simplified

http://www.nickbostrom.com/fable/dragon.html

http://lesswrong.com/lw/k8/how_to_seem_and_be_deep/
It's not obvious that people feel betrayed on an extremely personal and professional level?

These companies allowed people with a perverted sense of morality and the law to root through the most private details of our personal lives and our company's. Then they release the most weaselly denial ever contrived, and now this weak excuse for action.
>It will be interesting to see how pension liabilities and current pension guarantees are handled.

Pensioners will be last in line as usual, I assume.

>If they force the bond holders to eat it all then the market for municipal bonds will be hurt badly.

Good.

> The irresponsible largess in the current government pension system needs to come to an end.

1. It's always the working stiffs who have to sacrifice, isn't it?

2. It has come to an end.
DC does too.
Unlike a viewer on YouTube, when someone hands over their email address, you have the ability to follow-up with them, to continue building the relationship and (when the time is right) ask for the sale.

It's also a lot of validation that the core concept he communicated is worth pursuing. If he put up a landing page, promoted it, and got no email addresses, that would be a signal in the other direction.

1,100 email addresses from people to volunteered them in response to your idea is nothing to shake a stick at, especially in such a short period of time.
Leslie passed away a while back, but he remains iconic.
What is in a name?
Enough people are living as vegetarians to counter your claim of meat being necessary. Even so, meat consumption per person seems to go up everywhere, so even if you assume people need meat, a century ago they needed a lot less meat per person somehow.
Wouldn't these sound waves be below the human hearing threshold (20hz)?
At an abstract level, it's likely caused by low/stagnant supply, and increased demand which is inelastic (not affected much by changes in price).

Imagine a real estate market with only 100 1BR apartments to rent. If 85 are occupied, 15 available, and 5 people are trying to rent those 15, the price of rent should remain about the same as 10 will remain vacant.

However, if 40 people are trying to rent those 15, the price of the 15 will be bid up due to a limit in supply. Then the remaining 25 people will continue to bid up rents for any new vacancies. A scenarios like this can cause rents to skyrocket, especially if supply remains nearly constant.
What I don't see in the comments yet: This is interesting not only for Detroit, but for the precedent it sets. There are 10 or 15 municipalities that will study how to screw the retirees & bondholders as thoroughly as Detroit plans to and then go down that path.
It's never a bad idea taking small steps with such changes. Once transparency is in place, it'll be much easier to argue for stopping the practice altogether.

As a sidenote, think about how efficient copyright advocates have been with this strategy: slowly pushing through seemingly innocent changes.
Haha interesting
Maybe his 'dead man's switch' is just his lawyers. Doesn't solve the problems, but it sounds a lot more likely than some of the ideas being discussed here.
If you were the EFF would you refrain from signing when the outcome aligns to an acceptable result? I believe that this is a PR move, but I also believe this is not the moment to dismiss the effort.
This transmitter whose battery is implicated is a stock, off-the-shelf component used in multiple models of aircraft. It is not unique to the 787, was not developed for the 787, and it seems to be an unfortunate coincidence that the failure of one of those units occurred in a 787, when allegedly something like 6000 of these transmitter units have been in service for nearly a decade. Honeywell (which makes the transmitter) may be in for trouble, but apparently Boeing's stock price has rebounded a bit since people in the market actually, you know, read the available information and realized this isn't a "Boeing 787 battery problem".

Of course, I'm sure that any moment Elon Musk (PBUH) will be along to explain why the entire aviation industry was wrong to use these transmitters.
1. San Francisco is small enough that there is in how much housing stock is created, with the same development groups at times opposing growth and at times advocating for growth.

2. Since building codes and zoning laws are often manipulated to adjust supply, there is predictably a lag between need and updated codes. We are in the middle of a housing creation wave. There is currently a large volume of to-be-constructed units that have been approved by the planning commission and will be entering the market in the next year [1].

3. One of the most overlooked sources of demand pressure is the recent and rapid rise of west coast properties as good investment vehicle for Asian investors [2].

4. Re: rent control - it is intentional that the community believes it is more valuable to keep rental housing stock fluid and accessible, at the expense of investment appreciation. Or, at least the community used to believe - given the changing demographics of San Francisco, I would expect these rules to change in the next decade or two. A reasonable comp is changes in how rental stock and rent control is treated in Berkeley over the past two decades.

[1] http://www.sf-planning.org/index.aspx?page=1691
[2] http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_22313326/bay-area-rea...
My latest conspiracy theory about the relationship between Silicon Valley and the U.S. government:

Companies like Google, Apple, Facebook and others don't have time to do a lot of research and development unless it's directly related to the product they sell. So Google hires a lot of programmers who figure out how to deal with a lot of data, Apple hires a lot of software and hardware people who design beautiful integrated computing experiences...but their success depends on so much more than those narrow fields.

For example I read recently about some really high-tech networking switches that Google uses which allow their data centers to run that much more efficiently. Does Google have time to invent new kinds of networking equipment? Probably not. Maybe to build and deploy them... but not to invent. So they make a deal with DARPA, NSA or whoever. The government will trickle down any technological breakthroughs they've made using tax-payer money to the corporate sector, and the corporations will in exchange be VERY compliant and VERY quiet when it comes to feeding the NSA user data it hungers for.

Now shit's hit the fan, and the companies are attempting to simulate their dislike for the NSA.
Functional scorecard. Plan on adding any other statistics?
Of course, the peninsula isn't dirt cheap either. As prices in SF increase, that drives up rents along Caltrain, etc.
They attacked FEMA probably because it's a soft target: sclerotic with bureaucracy and probably not able to admin their own systems, let alone properly supervise a hurricane rescue op.

If they had gone for the NSA itself they would have a) pissed it off; b) gotten party vans outside their homes.
It actually didn't make sense (P2P) after a certain point. There was a huge Skype outages because of a SuperNode back in 2010 when it was P2P. The problem was a lot of super nodes ended up being desktop hardware that simply couldn't handle the increased load, likewise, since most desktops are behind some form of NAT or firewall, not many clients are eligible to be supernodes, meaning fewer and fewer reliable hosts to act as supernodes. Not to mention the additional load it creates for the user of the machine when it becomes a supernode.

The solution was simply for Skype to host its own super nodes. That was the original reason.

Of course, now there is also the wiretapping concern, but I think its high time something replaced Skype anyway, that either doesn't require the supernode weakness and possibly open source so the encryption can be ensured sending your private cert/key over to the centralized node/servers.
I think the fundamental problem with your analysis is that it treats "belief" as a binary rather than continuous valued attribute, which is inappropriate even for fairly simple claims where belief can be less than absolute, and it is certainly horrendously inappropriate for complex claims like "that a system of government is an effective means by which to manage a group of people living together."

A secondary problem is that you conflate belief that a system is "an effective means" (your first paragraph) with the belief that it is "the most effective means" (your second paragraph). These are obviously very different beliefs.

> It should be an indication to you that you find such an idea to be negative in the first place when Snowden is brought up. Why exactly do you think it's so negative that I say he doesn't believe in the US system of government?

I never said I found it to be negative. Saying that I think the logic of your argument is invalid is not saying I believe the statement it was offered to support is negative.
Mathematician here. Yes, this is about to be a nitpick, and I apologize in advance.

However:

> No, all suspensions are not fluids.

I think what you mean is "No, not all suspensions are fluids."

Interpreting what you said literally would imply that anything that is a suspension is definitely not a fluid. And I know one can interpret what you said according to common sense to deduce that you didn't mean that, and that since some suspensions definitely are fluids, then you must have meant that there are suspensions that are not fluids.

But this is about science, and where possible, I believe we should be precise.

I believe it matters.
i've got another question: why doesn't the EFF have a comments section on their articles? it's fucking irritating that i can't interact with the author of the article and have to do this on HN.

skype uses "supernodes", i.e. machines with fixed ip addresses, to effect its udp hole-punching to get p2p comms links working. iirc, the architecture of skype is such that supernodes also handle the key exchange (kex) between peers, which is more than a bit dodgy imo.

the kex should occur directly between the two hosts independent of the supernode, but i recall that this has been their architecture for many years, meaning skype can eavesdrop on any chat/call they choose by manipulating the supernodes. the main change that occurred when MS bought skype was that the supernodes were moved from being presumably-arbitrary hosts with fixed ips to hosts controlled directly by MS. since MS controls the nodes where both udp hole-punching _and_ kex occur, they can trivially MITM comms.

i wouldn't be one bit surprised if skype has been owned by intel services for many years. being literally owned by MS only makes this process easier and avoids involving foreign nationals.
Ken Thomases from CodeWeavers has done a great job implementing the winemac driver. It's getting a lot better with each release but there are still some performance issues compared to X11, so I wouldn't dump X11 just yet if you have a stable app using it.
The numbers of units being built in the linked SF Business Times article [0] seems to contradict those from the SF Chronicle [1].

Business Times:

Nearly 8,000 new apartments, mostly in mid-rise and high-rise buildings,
will come on line between now and 2015 — 3,498 in 2015 alone. It’s more
new rental housing than was built in the last 15 years combined, according
to real estate research firm Polaris Pacific.

SF Chronicle:

Largely in response to the city's growing technology sector, 22,000 residential
units are in various stages of approval and construction. … Since 2008, only
about 1,710 units were built each year, compared with an average of 2,220 each
year between 2004 and 2008, according to the department.

If the average was 2,200 housing units built each year between 2004 and 2008, that's 11,000 housing units. Granted the Business Times is using apartments as units, while the planning department uses housing units.

Looking at the planning department data [1], there are currently 28,010 housing units approved and 3,930 under construction. The total pipeline is 43,580 units. For the previous reports they provide, we've got:

* Q1, 2007: 9,305 filed, 4,736 approved, 4,978 under construction, 30,002 total
* Q3, 2007: 10,708 filed, 5,005 approved, 6,134 under construction, 31,761 total
* Q4, 2007: 20,890 filed, 4,570 approved, 6,790 under construction, 40,370 total
* Q1, 2008: 34,510 filed, 4,560 approved, 7,520 under construction, 53,980 total
* Q2, 2008: 32,370 filed, 4,780 approved, 7,480 under construction, 51,470 total
* Q2, 2009: 34,570 filed, 6,200 approved, 6,510 under construction, 54,610 total
* Q4, 2009: 30,370 filed, 8,220 approved, 1,320 under construction, 46,600 total
* Q2, 2010: 30,780 filed, 5,870 approved, 1,480 under construction, 43,780 total
* Q3, 2010: 20,710 filed, 16,690 approved, 1,180 under construction, 44,100 total
* Q1, 2011: 15,610 filed, 22,590 approved, 1,730 under construction, 45,820 total
* Q2, 2011: 7,620 filed, 29,760 approved, 1,820 under construction, 45,760 total
* Q3, 2011: 7,620 filed, 30,280 approved, 1,990 under construction, 46,620 total
* Q1, 2012: 6,180 filed, 27,670 approved, 3,990 under construction, 42,520 total
* Q2, 2012: 6,940 filed, 28,060 approved, 4,220 under construction, 43,280 total

So, data-wise, it's not clear this is as big a construction boom as it's made out to be. As an SF resident, however, I've never seen so much housing under construction, so maybe it's just more visible?

Does anybody else have any data?

[0] http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/print-edition/2013/0...

[1] http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/S-F-apartment-construc...

[2] http://www.sf-planning.org/index.aspx?page=1691
Ah, you're working on Persona. I thought you were a 3rd party.
I use wine with PlayOnLiunx http://www.playonlinux.com/en/ and I find it's quite usable. (PlayOnLinux makes it easy to setup different wine environment each with different parameters.)
I'll play the devil's advocate here. The tone of the comments is probably due to the fact that this letter is being written after it was out in the open what these companies were doing. It is due to the fact that it is coming after their vague language filled response letters to their customers over PRISM. The pushback from these companies should have started at the time they were "legally compelled to" to participate in the program.

And besides, if what you say is true, how do we know that these companies weren't legally compelled to write this letter to brainwash everyone? It's a drop in the bucket compared to what they were legally compelled to do before. How would we ever know if they will be legally compelled to report wrong numbers?
These companies together spend tens of millions of dollars on political lobbying around the world. If they felt victimized by this situation, did they attempt to use their political influence to change the law?

And frankly, this entire scandal is in part these companies having their chickens come home to roost. Google and Facebook have for years been pushing the culture into accepting that private entities will store and analyze your personal information for profit. How many times has Eric Schmidt publicly said that people need to get over their ideas of personal privacy? Google has played a direct role in changing the expectation of privacy on the internet into one with which the present spying programs are legally defensible. We should demand the government stay out of our business while private corporations are using our data for their own gain and without transparency? You work for a mild-mannered spy agency.
The fact that it doesn't work for the >50% of people who wear corrective lenses would be a start.

Also, the last three months have seen numerous software updates to add features and change functionality. It is an unfinished product and they are iterating based on user feedback.
Because when customers pay you and trust you personal data, they expect you to fight for them.
Sure, some thrust. The idea here is to find the sweet spot where enough thrust is provided to balance against the drag.. right?
You are basically doubting the current reality. Was San Francisco cheap when Twitter, AirBNB, Yammer, etc started?
Your [1] link is hardly a source, and I don't think I'd call Austin the #1 destination for ... well, anyone.

As another user posted, the density of SF is much greater, and it isn't getting any bigger.
you must have binged it :)
Where TF have you been? weev has always been one of anon's spiritual leaders. Hell, his tactics are probably the template for the sort of griefing, trolling, and hacking we associate with anon.
FanHero (YC S13) Helps YouTubers Sell Branded Merch To Their Fans
How about supporting secure storage and communication instead? Why didn't these companies start working on that as soon as they were "compelled" to cooperate with a legally dubious program?
It seems like C++'s lack of an ABI would bite you way before any issues with libc++. (Or is there one now? I'm getting old.)
The first thing that came to my mind was: god, these are horrible passwords.
GOOG and MSFT After Close
There is nothing really lending SF towards big-mega-dense city status. Manhattan has bedrock and flat terrain, which is great for building underground subways and tall buildings and letting people walk around. SF has hilly terrain and earthquakes.

I hate to say it, but maybe we should just leave SF to be sort of a "jewel." Let the tech companies and employees who can afford to live there remain.

Then, why not pick a place like Oakland or Alameda or perhaps somewhere more south of San Francisco, and build the mega dense business center of our dreams?

Maybe it makes more sense to recognize that SF is beautiful, rare, and limited in space, and leave it be. After all, it's basically the size of some "elite" neighborhoods in other big cities. Do the poor have a right to be accommodated in SF? There is a ton of space around it that can be developed more affordably and let's not forget about the rest of the country.

No, I don't live in SF. I just don't see why it should be turned into a New York clone.
> It's a somewhat racist simplification of things.

Housing and education are the two remaining bastions of socially acceptable racism and classism in American society. Middle class white families don't want to move into a city that's 80% black and 30% below the poverty line. There is a lot of talk about the revitalization of downtown Detroit. Take a look at this demographic map (blue = blacks, red = whites) and see if you can guess what neighborhoods those yuppies are moving into: http://media.mlive.com/news/detroit_impact/photo/detroit-rac....
My pitchforks are always out. I'm fair that way.
Maybe a script could be set to release a random subset of the documents and delete another random subset, i.e.

if snowden_has_not_logged_in_for_7_days():
for doc in documents:
if random.choice([True, False]):
release(doc)
else:
permanently_delete(doc)

Then all parties have something to lose (either undesired leak of some document, or losing the chance to learn the contents of a document) if Snowden dies.
Thanks for this, now I understand why Barcelona's subway stations felt so hot to me (while the subway cars themselves were cool). I live in an European capital more to the East where the subway stations are still a very nice refuge when temperatures reach 38-40 degrees in summer.
Which integration is most solid - Sublime Text?
Is this a typo:

>"For example:

-p 80:5000 redirects public port 80 to private port 80***"

because it later says:

-p 5000:80 to bind the port 80 of the container to the port 5000 on the host

EDIT: yep - but its now fixed in the article.