skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> If all the big companies just move each other's employees around, nobody benefits.

1) Big companies 'move employees around'
2) Industry salaries increase as a result
3) Supply of engineers increases as result of increased demand signaled by the higher salaries
4) Everybody benefits from influx of new talent

The 'new talent' is going to come regardless. It's the salaries in the industry that determine the quantity and quality of those new entrants over the long term.
By the way, https://mobile.twitter.com/ is not blocked.
One reason is that governments are funded by taxation, which is compulsory.
Yes one problem with minimum wage is that it is fixed across the country even though cost of living disparities are huge. The high cost of living in silicon valley pushes up wages even at the lower end, whereas in some rural areas it might even seem a bit high

For example in my hometown it is still possible to rent a flat with a friend for less than $400/month meaning single people can survive on very little
You can't open a background tab when you're not already in Chrome tho...
https://github.com/dim-s/jphp/search?q=invokedynamic&ref=cmd...
I thought the new comments rule would ban the whiners, nitpickers and nay-sayers, but it seems all just like it was before. :O
Kudos to the developer, who made this tool.
there is no such thing as an individual "bitcoin". It's just a numerical balance associated with a wallet. There is no way to mark a certain subset of bitcoins as invalid.

At best you could flag wallets, and any wallets who've made transactions with those wallets, etc., etc. which is basically what the people on reddit are doing to "trace" the coins. But, as many have mentioned before, it is not a very accurate way to trace the transactions especially if a service like a tumbler is used.
Grammar's great divide: The Oxford comma
> It's unfortunate that people no longer dive into original system/program documentation, but google/ask for quick answer.

I've been thinking about this myself. I think there's good reason: Google (or a bunch of experts on hand) will often provide a better, more concise answer to your specific question than having to search and grok the manpages.

As extreme examples, I regularly ragequit the Bash manpage after trying to find the meaning of some keywords, and the Sudoers manpage is notorious with presenting the syntax as EBNF without examples!

(a pity GNU Info never fixed their interface, the idea's good)
Apple effectively owning Objective-C.

Is that true? I spent the last four years coding primarily in Objective-C for Linux and Win targets; none of the tools I used were from Apple.
It's nice to see some progress on the PHP Front, with this and HHVM.
Though I'm not really a fan of PHP, it needs to be done, too much PHP code has been written.

I think the PHP guys themselves should push a bit more for a new runtime though.
Otherwise they'd have to write an actual spec and declase theirs as "just" the reference implementation or something.
Presuming someone to be lying is a huge presumption. Innocent until proven guilty should be a rule used in all cases (in the case of a 'lying' police officer, the charge is perjury).

If they can prove neglect of the evidence or deliberate tampering, of course, that would be another story.
Point number 1 in Google's "do not cold call protocol" clearly states that manager level and above candidates from these firms are not to be pursued even if they have applied to Google.
Absolutely the case. I just think it's wrong to assume - without stating it - that NDEBUG will be off "in production".
They are. Have a look at the last document.
Zero tolerance is reasonable if the law or rule itself is reasonable. The reason "zero tolerance" has a bad reputation is that it's usually applied to unreasonable rules. I'm fine with zero tolerance of elementary school children bringing actual firearms to school, but zero tolerance of children pretending a tree branch is a gun is just dumb.
"Effectively" -- Apple drives ObjC features, etc to pretty much the exclusion of any other actor.
I don't know that it has anything to do with voting since, as I pointed out, the bloat-causing rules come from both parties.
That isn't necessarily a problem, it creates the opportunity to ask the police officer why he generates so many complaints about his behavior. After all, he can make sure to turn the camera on and protect himself from a lot of accusations.
>It's one thousand times better to fail when trying to predict the flu epidemics than successfully using technology to bomb weddings.

That's a pointless and irrelevant comparison.

There's a cost to false positives, e.g. creating more vaccinations than necessary; fortunately I don't think the CDC or any other government organizations made any policy decisions based on Google Flu. As a person who works with a lot of data, I think applications like Google Flu have a lot of potential to do a lot of good. But it sounds like Google wasn't properly rigorous in their experiments if Google Flu is such a failure.
Very true... I feel that if workers tried to steal billions of dollars from the rich they would get thrown in jail. The other way around and we're _trained_ to believe that's preposterous.
You could set up an independent organization to track and identify stolen coins, and then convince merchants and exchanges to voluntarily refuse transactions involving them. If a few large entities refused to do business with addresses linked to stolen coins -- and the tainted addresses were fairly few in number -- then a lot of actors would be forced to follow suit to maintain their relationships with the initial core group of boycotters.

If you want the BTC network itself to reject stolen bitcoins, there's no need to stop there: if you had community agreement, you could just as easily reverse thieving transactions and make the victims whole.
This is by definition not the free market. You need to go back to remedial free market school. I suggest one course of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations (pay attention to Book 2, Chapter 2 especially) to start.

If the issue doesn't clear up within the week, please seek further guidance from a licensed professional.
This is an indication that you are too focused on the convenience of the publisher. The convenience of the reader is more important to most of us wanting to get a message out.
Henry Minsky, Marvin's son, works at Nest on the "Thermogotchi", a digital pet that lives on your wall, that's a sensor-driven, Wi-Fi-enabled, self-learning, programmable thermostat which you train to adapt to your habits and lifestyle, and keep happy by feeding love and energy.

http://www.beartronics.com/

Google liked the idea so much that they acquired the company that developed it. So if that isn't a practical application of AI, I don't know what is.
So your assertion is that you were making a true statement that was utterly unrelated to the subthread you were replying in?
I agree. Just because a technology is productized in some way doesn't mean it's safe. To the contrary if the product flops then the company will probably abandon it. Ideally I'd like to see both safeguards that a company will continue support: first, that they use it heavily internally; second, that it is productized and a substantial source of revenue or business security for the developing company.
Greenwald quotes Goldsmith in saying that this information was received from sources "other than Snowden", while the articles that both cite (the NYT and der Spiegel) state expressly that the information did come from Mr. Snowden's releases.

I'm not sure what to make of the argument that by releasing the trove of documents to journalists (instead of, say, as a big torrent) Snowden is absolved of complicity in any releases of information. That almost sounds like doublespeak. It also suggests that he either didn't know what he was releasing or didn't understand all of its ramifications. Both could be permissible (and, indeed, given the things that we have learned from the releases, is probably laudable from at least a utilitarian perspective), but it complicates the idea of Snowden as a brave truth-teller. Then again, that whole thought is filtered through the lens of this particular piece, in which Greenwald seems to be trying to separate a part of the leaks and recontextualize it separate from the other, definitely necessary stories.
The analogy was to C# and Objective C, not to those other languages. The argument went

1. Facebook might abandon Hack at some point

2. No, Hack is like Objective C and C#, which Microsoft and Apple support just fine

3. No here is how Hack is NOT like those languages, community support is not important to facebook like it is for ObjC and C#.

So how Microsoft treats other languages is completely irrelevant to that particular point, and actually supports what Marco is arguing here, since you're implying that programming languages might be abandoned even if community support does matter.
Even now many (most?) ISPs seem to offer email service with an internet package, so to the end user it is often built in.
> When 80-90% of people visiting the doctor for “flu” don’t really have it, you can hardly expect their internet searches to be a reliable source of information.

I just attended a talk that graphed the rate of physicians' diagnoses versus the truth, and the conclusion was that about half of physicians drastically overestimate, too (and it's far more than double, closer to five times more!).

So when 80-90% of people visiting the doctor for flu don't really have it and those doctors often make type II errors, you can hardly expect their diagnoses to be a reliable source of information.
The crux of your argument is :

1) keeping wages suppressed might be a good thing for the regional economy and long-term health of the tech industry

2) tech workers are already well compensated

Those are fair opinions, but the behavior described is still illegal. This is one of those situations where we can't have it both ways.
Whether or not it's the same thing, it uses the same mechanics. You can link the output of one transaction to the input of the next, and construct a chain of transactions that says "This 0.125 BTC transaction uses bitcoins that were originally stolen from MtGox / bitcoins that were originally in the pile designated as marking ownership of my shares of stock".

The question is whether that's a meaningful thing to measure. If you have bitcoins that are more valuable than normal, because they're shares of stock, then you'll make sure they're not mixed with "normal" coins. That's the idea of the Coloured Coins project. But if you have bitcoins that are less valuable than normal, because they're stolen goods, then you'll try hard to disguise that fact. You'll immediately spend them on goods or currency, or deposit them into a Coinbase account and then withdraw them later (so you get different coins back), or just throw them into a mixer with the other coins that need to be laundered.

The person who ends up holding the tainted coins could be perfectly honest, and have acquired them from a perfectly honest source, who in turn acquired them from a perfectly honest source. Is it fair to tell them that their money is suddenly worthless, when they had no way of knowing anything was wrong?
What prevents a particular mark from being interpreted as some measure of validity, though? If such marking can represent ownership of another asset, could it not represent some other concept, too?
> But I can't begin to imagine any long-term upside. I believe that if these people are left unchecked, their actions will lead to the mutually-assured destruction of privacy, or at least the sundering of the Internet.

Who is in the set of "these people" though? For instance, how do you think Huawei obtained much of their IP in the first place? If hacking will lead to the destruction of privacy then the U.S. is not the sole point of responsibility here.

In fact it's already the other way around completely; states hacking other states is a given, it's already happening and has been happening for awhile. Nothing NSA does or doesn't do will change the actions of the rest of the governments around the world.

I think you're right that the Internet will sunder itself, but if you're going to start pointing fingers then get ready to have a long list of pointees.
Just wait until Google Glass takes off, cloud storage becomes cheaper, wifi/mobile networks become faster... And those Russian dash cam/fail videos will hit a new high in no time.
The problem is the students have been fed the lie that more "prestigious" schools yield better outcomes. Although this might be true in an extreme minority of situations (investment banking is one example where prestige matters), for the most part, the ranking and cost of the college don't matter at all.

When I was in high school deciding which colleges I might want to attend, the guidance counselors spent great effort emphasizing that median salaries from all schools n (where n >> 1) years after graduation tended toward the same value, even if graduates from prestigious schools had better salaries at n=1 or n=2.

What I want to know is how the top quartile, top decile, etc. compare, especially for fields in which there are large companies paying high salaries, but primarily to graduates from prestigious schools.
There was a really nice couple of minutes there where I got first the Stack Overflow Closevote backlog (?!), then access to all the server directories. So eh, you should probably have a look at that. Nice app, though!
You cannot disprove the claim "Companies are less likely to abandon programming languages if they are likely to suffer by doing so" by giving counterexamples.
Just gonna throw my perspective out there, since I was a firsthand witness to this stuff.

I started at Google in 2005 as an ordinary software engineer, and I've not yet left them. Back then, Google recruiters were constantly bugging employees for referrals. But this "no poaching" thing wasn't some weird dirty secret among execs -- it was just sort of a common knowledge thing, and nobody seemed to think it was a big deal. "Oh, we have a gentleman's agreement with Apple not to poach them and vice versa -- so give us the names of your friends to reach out to, but not if they already work at Apple."

AFAICT, the reason I (and my coworkers) never thought of this policy as illegal is probably for two reasons:

1. Hey, poaching back and forth would create a lot of disruption and churn and mess up both companies' ability to get things done. Let's not start a pointless war.

2. We, as programmers, are ridiculously overpaid already. How could anyone possibly be "taking advantage" of us at these salaries? The notion seemed as absurd as a Programmer's Labor Union!

Again, the idea was not to poach, not to avoid hiring. If somebody from Apple applied for a Google job of their own will, that was fine.

In hindsight, I /guess/ I understand how this looks like evil collusion to keep salaries down... but really it seemed like common sense and civility at the time. At least that's how it was sold to us. It was sort of like the nuclear policy of Mutually Assured Destruction: "the only way to win is not to play." It's the same attitude that still explains why giant companies don't (typically) begin patent wars -- there's no point if everyone ends up destroying each other.
It's all propaganda. There's no engineering shortage. They're all just trying to flood the market with more engineers from all around the world.

It's all propaganda plastered with a nice marmalade of feel goody "let's help the immigrants", or "everything great about our country came from immigrants", or other such variants of rhetoric. It's actually very smart, because it plays to the tune that people dance to.

That said immigration policies do need to change, and immigration is indeed a good thing for this country. Attracting talent is a lot of what makes this country great, but we need to be careful with the fine print of such policies as to not destroy our own economy.
Vietnam would want to have a word with you on that one...
Wow, this whole hubbub about them keeping down engineer salaries is completely disingenuous if that line applies across the board.
Perhaps I have an invisible dragon in my garage.

What do you think is more likely, that no one is doing it because it's highly effective or that no one is doing it because it causes problems?
I down vote them when I see them. I figure that will discourage people from repeating that style of comment and a few of them here and there won't wreck anything.
>It's a very interesting development as it shows that stolen bitcoins can be tracked indefinitely unlike FIAT.

You can track dollar bills by their serial number. It's basically the same thing as what's going on here, except that few people record the serial numbers of their bills.
If a new building replaces an old building, those costs should be the same as or lower than the older building, per square foot. If the new building does not replace an older building, it should allow the college to enroll more students or provide other services that bring in more revenue to pay for those ongoing costs.
Sometimes, Googling can be a lot quicker than finding the answer in the documentation. Sometimes, the documentation does not exist. Sometimes, the documentation is wrong and Googling finds a discussion that corrects it. Sometimes, you don't actually know what documentation to start with because a system is so new to you that you don't know what you need to know.

When I answer questions on Stack Overflow/Stack Exchange, if the answer is in the documentation, I always try to link to it, while also providing a brief and clear explanation in the answer in case the documentation might be hard to interpret. I hope that helps with some of those people who don't know where to start in the documentation, or may have had trouble understanding it.

For example, in this case, the documentation is hidden away in the kernel source tree. If you don't have a kernel source checkout, you may not have this documentation available on your system at all; and even if you did, you may not think to look there. This should be documented in a man page somewhere, but there's a long list of things that should be documented in man pages which are not: https://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/missing_pages.html

It is a good idea to learn how to find information in common documentation sources that are available on your system. One problem is that Google frequently winds up being a better answer than local documentation because it offers a single interface to find all kinds of documentation, rather than having to learn dozens of different interfaces and places to look, only some of which are easily searchable. Off the top of my head, here are a few places that I've needed to look for documentation recently: man pages, /usr/share/doc, kernel source, perldoc, pydoc, rdoc, info, Gnome Devel Docs, and so on.

Gurus haven't always read more docs than you have. Sometimes they had to read the source. Sometimes they've just learned through trial and error, and reasoning about how stuff probably works. Sometimes they learned by word of mouth from someone else with experience. Reading the docs can definitely help; it can let you know about functionality that you've never thought to look for. But it's not the only tool for learning about a system, and how effective it is depends heavily on how thorough and good the documentation for the system is.
While I appreciate your general point, I disagree with the notion that companies have a vested interest in protecting a language, tool or framework only once it has attracted a critical mass of developers. Other factors signal a company's commitment. Case in point: your comment about Dart. A few weeks ago I and two of the engineers who helped develop Dart gave talks at Google about the future of Angular / Dart.

It's public knowledge -- yet many people don't know -- that Google is also using AngularDart for large internal projects. Though the technologies still have relatively small user bases, Google has devoted considerable time, money and manpower to building software with AngularDart and to making it accessible to external developers. For example, my talk was part of an initiative called FlightSchool that provides comprehensive tutorials, workshops and other resources.

Having said that, I wouldn't argue that a large user base is the most important signal of mutual support and leverage in the relationship between engineers and software companies.
I can only speak for my field (mathematics) :-/

But perhaps the mathematicians are on the far end of the spectrum, since their ideal work environment requires nothing but a writing utensil and a writing surface.
That's one sort of "fairly" - that employees should participate in profit sharing and that their compensation should be tied directly to the value they create (though should employees also share in the losses?).

Another kind of "fairly" is that Labour is its own market, and employees should be paid commensurate to their replacement cost.

Both are valid models, though the latter is much more common. The difference between which model is followed can often come down to the negotiation abilities of the individual employee (or their agents) and their relative scarcity. E.g. an extra for a hollywood blockbuster movie is paid the same daily rate as an extra on an independent art-house film - because it's easy to hire extras and they are interchangeable. The movie stars on the other hand are more scarce (at least those with marketable reputations are) and so can negotiate points on the gross.
Shipwire
blockchain.info has a method of tainting and tracking coins:

https://blockchain.info/tags?form_type=1

Taint is viewable using "Related tags" and "Taint Analysis" on address pages.
I'm not sure why this is being down voted... because it disagrees with your view?

I don't agree with the statement but it does represent a possible solution - all companies involved in this should have their employees go on strike!

People think this idea is ridiculous because they've been told it is over and over and over again. Are unions really evil or are they ever more necessary to balance out the insane profits companies are making?

Just some questions worth thinking about before you arbitrarily down-vote someone...
With the first version of VB.Net and Winforms, you could more or less pretend that you were working in VB6; it was akin to the difference between C++ and C (with all the goodness and badness suggested by the analogy). VBA is still supported in Office.

People are still making ridiculous amounts of money writing Silveight apps, and to the degree that MS abandonded it, that was because of “mobile”.
MS and Apple case are even worse. MS solutions usually dont work outside Windows (yeah i know about Mono ,but it's just broken for me), and Obj-C,outside Ios and OsX, it has 0 utiliy.

Hack IS open source. Cocoa or .Net are not. Frankly Hack doesnt come out of nothing. There is a serious need or demand in PHP fixing ,since half PHP core team dont want to fix anything.I'm glad facebook did this ,somebody picked up PHP and made it better,without giving a damn about what PHP core thinks. That's a good start,there are good things in PHP ,but there are bad things too that should just vanish.Too bad i'm not good enough to create my own language, I so would want to do that.
He makes both of those points, but I think the point of hours argument is that the behavior we're seeing is tech companies agreeing not to cold call, and no other form of not hiring or price fixing, and that as long as this is limited to stopping cold calls it isn't illegal.
That principle also applies in the US to some extent.
No, that's the "Restricted Hiring" section. The "Do Not Cold Call" section says nothing of the sort.

The Restricted Hiring section is actually rather interesting. Why the ban on pursuing managers from Microsoft, Novell, Oracle, and Sun? Of note it says that only for "Product, Sales, of G&A roles", but pursuing engineering at any level is fine.
To understand tainting you really need to work on the level of outputs, not wallets.