skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It's an amount of money paid above a base pay. This amount represents future commissions not yet earned by the sales person. This is done in order to provide a more stable paycheck during the initial "on-boarding" process as well as during lean times.

Frankly, I never understood why sales professionals don't just work for a good wage and that's it. The very engineers who build the products earn a decent wage, work long hours, are continuously studying and sharpening their skills and devoted years of schooling to even be able to get the job.

In my early exposure to sale folk I recoiled at the idea of paying someone commission because I felt that if one person got commissions then everyone involved in bringing the product to market was just as entitled to them. Of course, the problem is far more complicated than that and I quickly learned you simply could not hire a good sales person unless they saw some kind of pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. That's just the way that side of the universe has devolved and that's it.

One approach I have never tried is to have everyone on stock options. Pay the sales folks a good salary, not some crapy $30K/y base + commissions. The theory being that they are going to want to work just as hard to get the company to a level where their stock will make them a bundle of money. A lot of folks in sales are very mercenary in nature and end-up living from battle to battle, commission to commission. This sets-up a situation where it might actually be difficult to convince them to use a forward looking approach and forgo the usual deal in favor of stocks at some time in the future.

My experience got me to the point where I determined it was a far better idea to identify someone with no sales experience and bring him/her up into sales from within the company. No bad habits, better connection to the business, actually thankful for bringing them up to a level where they could earn real money and a whole host of other benefits. Once I tried that approach and had good results I never hired another sales person from the "real world" again.

Live and learn.
I am not in America, but perhaps a little education about nutrition at school would help to make people think twice about their food and drink choices?
White House was given 'heads-up' over David Miranda detention in UK
Porn is definitely a sensitive subject around here.

I have been down voted into oblivion before for bringing it up. I guess the accepted opinion around here is as long as women get paid to be objectified its all cool. And ofcourse there are no effects of such objectification on any of the minds that make up this enlightened society.

EDIT: Pretty sure everyone arguing for there being a big difference thinks things like Steubenville are just random events too.
> Maybe you should be up front with your next employer about your stand-up stuff and see how they respond.

What someone does off the clock with their own time, unless they're a public figure representing their company 24/7 (such as various high profile CEOs) should have no bearing on how they're perceived either by their employer or clients.

As long as you are performing your work duties efficiently and doing your job, you are holding up your end of the bargain and that should be the end of it. If your employment contract doesn't stipulate that you are not allowed to engage into certain activities outside your working hours, then you can do as you please and your employer has opened themselves up for a gigantic lawsuit by pulling these kinds of shenanings.

I for one would sue the hell out of you if you fired me based on what I do on my own time, if you can't prove that I was underperforming or damaging the company in any way.
Common sense, if the "traditional value" is that women should be in the house cooking lest they subject themselves to groping and leering. Common sense.
"I said, "look this is awkward, but I've seen the company mentioned on fuckedcompany.com a number of times, and it's all bad news, is there any concern?""

Ah, fuckedcompany.com! I miss that site. It really offered some good insights into what was happening during the internet bubble. For those who missed it (it went away in 2007), here's a description:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fucked_Company

And here's a random snapshot from 2001:

http://web.archive.org/web/20011201061308/http://fuckedcompa...
India is getting better -- it's just doing so slowly, unevenly, and from a low baseline.
I usually criticize Brazil (the B in BRIC), which is my home country, in comments, but I must correct you here.

Regarding respect for people - be it that they are women, or members of minorities - Brazil doesn't have the issues those other countries face (and I wonder what the situation is like in Russia).

Women in Brazil enjoy the same level of freedom they would enjoy in America or Europe. There is no strong patriarchal culture in place, and there is as little misogyny as there is in America. In fact, a lot of Brazilian girls are sick and tired of Americans and Europeans that go to Brazil and treat them with much less respect than local guys do, because for some reason white foreigners mostly seem to think Brazilian girls are super easy (they are only very, very nice, but that doesn't mean they are nymphomaniacs) and that they all dance naked during Carnival (most of them don't).

Regarding minorities, while there is debate about racism and all, it is much less of an issue than say in America. My wife and I were surprised by how big of deal that kind of thing is here in America. I guess in Brazil we're just used to living with lots of people of varying ethnicities and don't care much about their color or whatever. Of course there is racism, and there is a clear racial aspect in the social divide, but again it's way less of an issue than it is in America.
Just before reading, thumbs up for awesome title.
Might mean __dict__, but it's a silly point to make since underneath that and the rest is *PyObject.
I think the bits of negativity are more about their methods than their products. There aren't many people who find much to fault in the actual cameras, but the way they are marketed and supported is maddening to people used to dealing with the older-school cinema companies like Arri and Panavision.

The attitude is even evident in this last post:

"In 2005, I could see that the powers that be (Sony, Arri, Panavision) were going to attempt to persuade the film industry that 1080P was going to be the digital replacement for film." - for fifteen years years people have been aware that 4k was a sensible equivalent resolution. The first digitally restored film was done at 4k in 1993! The Panavision Genesis (with a Sony sensor) had a 6k horizontal sensor pixel count! The Arri D20 had a 2.8k sensor!

"Sony's digital cinema cameras were $200k+" - cinema cameras are always rented, not bought. Very few people care or even know about their list price. At the time it was bizarre to market a camera like this to the public rather than to rental houses.

"The only way we could do that was through incredible compression technology" - they use JPEG2000. Not even something more specialised like CineForm, which already existed.

"I should mention here that there were many color science and feature upgrades... for free. Again, what company ever offered that?" - cameras rented from a rental house have always had regular firmware upgrades, doing the kind of things Red's upgrades did.

Compare the technical documentation from Red to that of Arri - Arri will shower you with whitepapers full of numbers and graphs, and tell you exactly what is going on in their cameras. The Red colour science is still secret. What are the primaries of the sensor? It's secret. What do the F-LUT controls do? It's secret.

Enough moaning. Red were the first cinema company with a real marketing budget and it was all very strange to people who were all about the right tool for the job, most of those tools being made in limited runs in extremely practical packaging without shiny logos on every corner...
I am right now wondering why my commodity car doesn't have this feature - have the engineers even thought of it? It's ridiculous how the latest 2013 models have made incremental improvements compared to 1970s models. Sure they have better HP/torque curves and mileage/safety ratings, but automatic transmissions were invented LONG ago.

Is there been ANY significantly new feature in the latest models?
From lowest end to highest end, the wait time is 3, 2 and 1 month. It crushes my old 911 C4.
To people saying this is all micro optimization - have you guys actually measured? If so, please post the numbers.

It's presumptuous to simply say 'all this is unnecessary' unless you have measured it and we have no reason to believe the author hasn't measured it.

BTW, the file is copyright nginx.
Yeah, pricing would seem to be a critical piece of info for reservation. Unfortunately I can't see what happens when you click on the "reserve now" link because the JS doesn't work in my browser (Aurora on Linux.)
I completely appreciate what you're saying here, and I think you're absolutely correct... However framing your insight with "Again you fail" makes me respect your opinion less. As someone who had a similar idea to the person you replied to, and as someone who comes to HN to have "smarter people in the room", it's this kind of condescension that keeps me from commenting on HN.

Sorry for the mini-rant, your three word comment doesn't really warrant it but hopefully you can respect why I took the time to type it.
I'm not sure a magazine about diabetes is something to be appalled about. Lots of people have type 1 diabetes, which is more or less congenital and whether you contract it or not is out of your control.

Reading materials for those with gluten-free diets aren't so tabboo, why is it so for food recommendations that help keep a healthy A1c level?
Well considering they had a max speed of two miles an hour unloaded, you could probably jump off and get a beer before the crash happened.
I feel it's important to remember that in the employee-employer relationship, you're peers.

That's a false statement whose falseness has been observed by economists since Adam Smith:

What are the common wages of labour, depends every where upon the contract usually made between those two parties, whose interests are by no means the same. The workmen desire to get as much, the masters to give as little as possible. The former are disposed to combine in order to raise, the latter in order to lower the wages of labour.

It is not, however, difficult to foresee which of the two parties must, upon all ordinary occasions, have the advantage in the dispute, and force the other into a compliance with their terms. The masters, being fewer in number, can combine much more easily; and the law, besides, authorises, or at least does not prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen. We have no acts of parliament against combining to lower the price of work; but many against combining to raise it. In all such disputes the masters can hold out much longer. A landlord, a farmer, a master manufacturer, or merchant, though they did not employ a single workman, could generally live a year or two upon the stocks which they have already acquired. Many workmen could not subsist a week, few could subsist a month, and scarce any a year without employment. In the long-run the workman may be as necessary to his master as his master is to him, but the necessity is not so immediate.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN3.html#I.8.11

Smith continues to further detail the advantages of employers. Not all of the conditions he describes apply fully today (trades unions are no longer illegal), though in practice they largely still hold, particularly in the technology sector (in which trade unions are almost wholly nonexistent).

The law of rent (David Ricardo) states the situation simply: your ability to command a wage from one employer is wholly dependent on your ability to claim as much or higher compensation from another, or by striking out on your own.

Smith also makes the observation that it's not the size of an economy but its growth which tends to produce circumstances most favorable for labour (a growing economy has a larger number of alternative opportunities for labour).
Some of my friends going south had kinder eggs for their children confiscated as a choking hazard. It was such a serious risk of choking that the kids weren't even allowed to eat them at the border.
> Everything in Bootstrap gets box-sizing: border-box

Why w3c didn't make it default is beyond me.
It's an Australian supermarket - South Australia I'm guessing based on the "SA Lotteries" sign in one of the photos. The supermarket in question is a Foodland but could easily be any other supermarket in Australia. I thought it was my local Woolworths store based on the product layout in the photos and I'm in Sydney, NSW.
If you read some of Michael Pollan's books, one of the key observations that he makes about the food system is that people assume organic/natural/etc. foods are expensive when in fact most of the stuff you buy at the grocery store (and fast food joint) is made artificially cheaper. The #1 culprit of this is the subsidizing of the corn industry. Corn is the source of the corn syrup that ends up in all of those soft drinks, snacks, salad dressings etc. On the protein side of it, it's used as the primary feed for cows and other animals. So you have junk food that's cheaper than it ought to be at the grocery store and fast food that's cheaper than it ought to be at your favorite drive-through.

I'm not sure why we keep looking downstream at the problem when there is in fact an underlying SINGLE cause upstream that can address a lot of the issues. Remove the subsidies, allow food to cost a bit more, financially incentivize people to eat 1) better food and 2) smaller quantities of food, and let the downstream problems like obesity, diabetes, etc. take care of themselves.
Using a horizontal bar to denote vertical position is a tad unintuitive. I feel like this doesn't really solve the problem you are talking about, and instead adds to the confusion of readers who notice the bar.

Edit: Keep in mind that as I'm reading the story, my eyes are nowhere near the top of the browser. If you want to give me context, the top of the page is not the best place to provide it. It does make for a cool demo though.
Excellent point.

But I still have the feeling that simply asking for explanations puts you at risk. Being annoying is a risk. They know that they are not giving you the information you need to do your own valuation. A common tactic from managers is to maintain ambiguity, only to be resolved later against your interest. Many companies have an established scheme with plausible deniability by design. Even if they explain everything to you, you might not be qualified to understand it. I've seen a founder tell me that I don't have to pay for my stock options to become stock, a mistake that is worth $100K+ and I wouldn't have known that if I didn't speak with a financial advisor.

You just can't have the private company information, competence and time to double check everything your management is saying and supposed to do for you. It's just trust in the guy who is in position of power.
I'm willing to bet that you've nailed the exact reason he's not doing SpaceX exclusively yet.
Performance? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLCdP6sMN9k#at=29
If you could read it out of people's brains, harmlessly, painlessly, etc, i think that would be fine.

I must state that this sentiment sickens me slightly. I sincerely hope that this interpretation is absolutely unthinkable by the time technology reaches that point. I don't believe that any world in which one's thoughts and memories are not private can ever be free.
I think you are glossing over if not the asymetry in information, than the assymetry in the opportunity cost. 'Walking away', as you put it. Testing the market in this way is stigmatized by future employers (collusively, perhaps) on the one hand. On the other hand, companie have deeper pockets to cushion lumpy productivity/profits. The issues and dynamics are a lot different for a higher level position, where an executive, for example can trade off his reputation to find a new job, perhaps has a sizeabel net worth in any event, and has the contacts and hierachical access to information in the company to no only understand ways of adding value but vulnerabilities of the company as well. This is why you see golder parachutes and etc. These people are <leaving> so they will no longer be productive. You are paying them to go away, quietly, without damaging anything on the way out.
Many of them do, although there is the notorious story of an Enzo that got literally torn in half on CA 1 and both people inside walked away.
Looking through a lot of those photos of promotional stands (soft drink, chips, magazines, energy drinks, etc) I'm reminded of a broad rule that distracts me whenever I see TV advertising especially: If it's being advertised, you probably don't need it.

(The other broad rule that distracts me in these cases: If a female subject in an advertisement is a brunette, it's usually targeting women. If blonde, it's more likely to be targeting men.)
They're available in Texas...or at least were a couple of years ago.
A bit off track, but the one thing I found that slit the throat of over zealous marketing was to study marketing. It helped disconnect the sales message from the product and it became painfully obvious how hard a lot of the product marketers need to push.

A tub of chocolate spread is a healthy option because it has hazelnuts and dairy? A bottle of soda is diet because it substitutes one of the dozen chemicals?

Compare that with the produce aisle where there's no marketing and it becomes clear the worst the product the harder it needs to be marketed.
Please don't take a joke on my part too far. It was just intended as a joke, nothing more. We have someone in the family with a PhD in Physics and we've had lots of very interesting conversations. We see each other several times a month in the context of family gatherings. Amazing depth of knowledge in his area (orbital mechanics mostly). Worked at JPL, etc.

He can't even assemble Ikea furniture. Does not like to exist in that world. My son and I had to go to his house and install a window air conditioner for him because he had no idea where to start and barely owns any tools. I find that odd and funny in many ways.

When it comes to real-world embodiments of theoretical constructs he checks out. He was zero experience doing anything "real". I tried to have my son work with his uncle on some of his school science projects because I want him to engage with people at various levels. Every attempt has been a complete disaster. He either does not understand reduction to practice or over complicates things beyond recognition. I find this very interesting.
My diary is just myself in the past. Must I be compelled to testify against my future self?
I totally disagree with the author, I am in living an a generation that has good chances to become more than one hundred years old, living is as healthy as never.

Thought I need to agree food is not.

Anyways two or three cokes a week won't hurt.

Drinking Daily coffee won't hurt.

Eating at McDonalds or BurgerKing twice a week won't hurt.

If you do sports twice a week. (And eat some Vitamins, but that is usually no problem I believe.)
http://michaelpollan.com/articles-archive/when-a-crop-become...
I realize this is an uncommon opinion but I'm ok with this. I am not overweight, am fairly active, and rarely eat anything unhealthy. I am ok with this simply because that is how the market works. If you think of the world as some list of good vs. bad rules to follow, then certainly the supermarkets of today are appalling. But if you think of them as a set of interdependent actors within a closed system, each trying to maximize their personal utility functions, it makes perfect sense.

A few years ago I was enraged walking through a Whole Foods store (for the first time) and coming upon one Homeopathic remedy after another in an entire aisle of medicines that weren't. It took me some time to realize that Whole Foods is not in the business of keeping me healthy. They are in the business of selling products. And so is everyone else.

It is in the supermarket's best interest (short-term at least) to not manually stock everything but rather let vendors of different product lines setup their special displays. That's how you get the entire Doritos-line product display. It is in the best interest of the Doritos agent to maximize the sales at this particular store to get the highest commission. Doritos has learnt that giving a commission based on store-specific sales is the best way to maximize sales. The same goes for the Weight Loss and Diabetes mags, and even the pharmaceutical aisles.

Additionally, it is in the best interest (again, at least in the short term) of the residents of the neighborhood to have one store they can go to in order to buy everything. Think of everyone aligning their actions with the best of their abilities to benefit themselves the most, like a crowd of hundred gather around a street performance to give themselves the best vantage point, and you end up with the world as is today.

This does not mean it is the best the world can be. Certainly it is possible to optimize for net good at the cost of specific losses to certain entities but then we come back to the debate of who decides who should pay more taxes or lose their license to engage in trade. So as it stands, I am ok with seeing obviously unhealthy products aimed at the most vulnerable because unless the market wants otherwise, doing anything to change that is going to shake up more than a few foundations that build our economy and society.
I would much rather live in a country where we are free to choose what we eat but most people are unhealthy, than the inverse.

The blog post attempts to use emotional manipuation to win people its side.

For instance, it ignores the fundamental tradeoff involved (freedom vs. public health), it uses vulgarity in the title, and has a massive platitude at the end. Moreover, it is highly focused around pictures, which is a giveaway for an attempt at emotional manipulation.

In summary, this is highly juvenile and evasive writing and thinking.

Even if you agree with the author's ultimate point of view, you should feel insulted that he would try to appeal to you you in a way that is not based in reason and logic.
There's a huge opportunity for startups in the health and fitness space. Lots of room for disruption and a literally "growing" customer base.
Nice writeups, thanks!
It is definitely culture. The US didn't start treating women reasonably on its own. It required a generation of women to protest in the streets until the culture and the law changed. This hasn't happened in India yet, but is hopefully now beginning. I wouldn't draw too many direct parallels between women in the pre-'60s US, and women in India since the respective traditions are so hugely different, but what has to happen to fix it is the same.

What I'm going to describe is a bit of a caricature, but it's true enough that it's the dominant theme of Indian soap operas. Traditionally in north India, women don't even eat with the rest of the family. They are expected to remain in the kitchen cooking and serving food until the meal is finished, when they eat whatever is left, alone. The woman only gains power in the family when she's the oldest person left alive, at which point the veneration for elders supersedes her subjugation. The stereotype is that at this point, she takes out the frustration of her years of abuse by ordering around her daughter-in-law.
I can't speak for everyone (obviously there's a use case here), but every company I've ever worked at had a process for ordering your own business cards. In other words, the process wasn't handled by one person for everyone at one time, rather when a person wanted to order cards, they went to the company website and placed an order.