skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Reasons I've heard:

- Cost of living relative to expected salary is too low.

- Can work for big public companies that pay well in lower-cost areas.

- Weather preferences.

- Family lives thousands of miles away from SF.

- Over 30, still interested in doing technical work.

- Want to own a home, not a millionaire.

- Interested in starting a business, low-cost matters if not going for VC.

- Found interesting & challenging technical work elsewhere.

Etc.

This is kind of like asking why people didn't all move to NYC in the 2000s, or Texas during the oil boom, etc.
Next will be per bag fees for trips to the airport.

Just feels slimey with a side of "But safety! Don't you want safety?!"
It feels like a "whoops, we cut prices too far" move.
Coffee vs. Beer
Video of Falcon 9 Reusable (F9R) taking its first test flight
WebCL is already running on Tizen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TurCVdaUTMY So that is going to be my next cellphone ;)
That looks fantastic. If I used Chrome I might even use it.

Its aesthetics are, well, not the best, though. Consider just a solid line?
Is it?
Who doesnt want to get into profitable domain. 99% of the people want to make money and there is nothing wrong in it. From what I read BPO days are gone, people are moving away from it. You need to look at some more stats before saying its only external investment running such a large economy. Truth could be different, we need to be there to figure that out.

My question still remains unanswered why people are following Indian elections. Is it India following sheep herd mentality or it has become important economy for others to watch
I tend to agree. Shoot, even Hollywood, sees it. Watch this trailer for an upcoming space movie ... it's all scenes from the US's early spaceflight successes, accompanied by Matthew McConaughey saying we shouldn't believe all our best accomplishments are behind us. If this is how smart marketers are advertising the movie, it's a safe bet it's on many peoples' minds.

http://www.interstellar-movie.com/
Needs to support larger bills and coins
How does the Rust programming language translate into a 'gold rush?'
This has been studied

http://blog.codinghorror.com/separating-programming-sheep-fr...
I highly doubt they do refund that, but that brings up a very good point.
In a startup / smallish company it is pretty easy to evaluate relative impact for a given quarter. I would agree its really really hard to do that algorithmically.
I would guess that this was an easier-to-market way to sell the user on an unfortunate price increase. I would imagine no one would disagree that they want a safe ride, and for Uber I am sure that indeed it will support newly discovered costs of doing business... so they might be right to sell it this way.

The fact that it was released on a Friday before an Easter Holiday weekend might support the theory that it's just simply a "bad news" price increase [1].

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/26/nyregion/in-announcing-unf...
According to her wiki page, that either was a hoax or they reconciled.
Not super common in my experience; typical equity schemes are both much fussier and way more opaque.
5 Reasons You Need BitDash
The most important bit of advice in this post pertains to vesting. If you do nothing else Spolsky advises, make damn sure you pay attention regarding vesting.
Facebook Paper adds new Hacker News "cover"
They're zeroed out.
"full stack web developer"

What do we call people that are actually full-stack, rather than just the front-end client/server parts?
He's suggesting you meant circumnavigated, not circumvented.
And while that's interesting from the perspective of fetching web content via curl (and kudos to the author tracing it down to that), that doesn't mean the fundamental issue shouldn't be fixed.

In the current security environment, from heartbleed to the NSA, it's becoming clear that security issues need to be systematically dealt with from an industry perspective or people will start to lose faith in secure Internet communication, which would undermine too much of what's valuable about the Internet.

What we need is great APIs/frameworks/design patterns to simplify cryptography so that a newbie ruby on rails programmer CAN create actually secure applications and not even realize that it was complicated in the first place.

In cryptography you make one misstep and the entire chain is broken. It's thus important for things like the linux kernel to provide great implementations so that people don't think twice about using it and never want their own PRNG.
> If your family invested tremendous amount to raise you and send you to a good school, is it bad that they want you to be successful?

I have trouble here with the word "invested". There's nothing wrong with giving your children a good education, and there's nothing wrong with wanting them to be successful for themselves and on their own terms. But an "investment" is exactly the wrong way to look at it. An "investment" is something people expect a return on. Having your child do well in life is not a return to you on your "investment".

Look again at what JPKab wrote:

>> I envy [the lack of pressure in NZ]. I have tremendous pressure from my extended family to make money, so I do.

Someone who feels this way is not living their own life.

I work hard to make money and be successful too. But I don't do it because someone else wants me to. I do it because I want to, and I do it the way I want to do it. So I don't envy the bucolic New Zealand lifestyle. It's right for some people, I'm sure, but it would bore me to tears in a matter of days. (I'm not saying I couldn't live in NZ, but I would still want to do the kind of work I'm doing.)

I used strong language quite intentionally. JPKab needs to figure out what he/she really wants to do in life, and that's going to require putting an emotional wall up to block out all that pressure. It won't be easy, but the reward will be an authentic life.
Success as a programmer meaning what exactly? Salary or knowledge?

If its the former, i reckon ""with a huge period of growth in our industry" has a lot more to do with it than anything else you did. If you studied ancient greek instead, all the hard work in the world wouldn't have helped you.
I think that is a feature of limited utility. In most cases where I would want a new username, especially in the case of wanting to appear more professional, I would want a new comment history as well as a new username.
Squarepusher x Z-Machines – The making of stupendous music machines
Sometimes. Other times[1], you've been so successful that you lose touch with reality and think you're invincible.

The truth is, the laws of physics don't care about your age. You can make a product people want at any point in time. 99% of it is plumbing. That 1% brilliant insight is often just common sense applied to an intersection of two disparate domains. The majority of successful web companies have made this apparent. All they did was use the web as a platform to simplify some previously web-disconnected task.

As humans, we love the Heroic Myth above all else. That some are chosen by God to rule over us with their talents.

The reality is, if you learn to work within what the laws of physics allow, anything is possible. Just go out there and do it, and don't give up. Physics doesn't care how many times you try, or how long it takes. As long as you don't kill yourself in the process, you can always keep improving.

Don't get caught up in the hype. The tortoise wins the race 99% of the time.

1. http://www.fastcompany.com/3028159/a-broken-place-better-pla...
Focusing on just the rocket in flight, it's easy to start interpreting it as a much smaller object. Looking at the size of the trucks next to the launch pad in comparison is just mind blowing after seeing the rocket maneuver the way it did.
the c-ares init (which reads /dev/urandom) inside curl init happens even when DNS isn't used at all (even when making a request to 127.0.0.1), so it's pretty hard to avoid as long as curl is built with c-ares. The only way to mitigate is to remove c-ares or limit calls to curl init.
40x 2013 Revenue. Probably 20x 2014 revenue.
In which case rand and the like really should be renamed unsecure_random to prevent confusion.
This is meant as library code, not application code, though for template work, this is actually quite lightweight. You'd see scarier creatures than this if you write C++ libraries. Perhaps you should take a look at the implementation of your standard libraries or your favourite boost library sometime.

Let's break it down:

If this weren't library code you mightn't care about proper forwarding (which isn't important anyway since the function you're calling is written in C and C doesn't have lvalue-references!! - unnecessary complexity), so you would sloppily write this as:

template<typename Creator, typename Destructor, typename... Arguments>
auto make_resource(Creator c, Destructor d, Arguments&&... args)
{
typedef decltype(*c(args...)) ResourceType;
return std::unique_ptr<ResourceType, void(*)(ResourceType*)>(c(args...), d);
}

Which is much easier to understand, yes? Your standard passing multiple arguments along thing like you'd normally do when writing a custom printf.

Actually, now that I've had time to think about it, you can simpify the original code:

template<typename Creator, typename Destructor, typename... Arguments>
auto make_resource(Creator c, Destructor d, Arguments&&... args)
{
auto r = c(std::forward<Arguments>(args...));
typedef typename std::decay<decltype(*r)>::type ResourceType;
return std::unique_ptr<ResourceType, void(*)(ResourceType*)>(r, d);
}

And again, written sloppily:

template<typename Creator, typename Destructor, typename... Arguments>
auto make_resource(Creator c, Destructor d, Arguments&&... args)
{
auto r = c(args...);
typedef decltype(*r) ResourceType;
return std::unique_ptr<ResourceType, void(*)(ResourceType*)>(r, d);
}

Or, if you don't mind repetition of ResourceType:

template<typename Creator, typename Destructor, typename... Arguments>
auto make_resource(Creator c, Destructor d, Arguments&&... args)
{
auto r = c(args...);
return std::unique_ptr<decltype(*r), void(*)(decltype(r))>(r, d);
}

Clearer?
> with records of closures.

Interesting. Can you point me to an example?
1) Go talk to HR for the documents relating to your specific situation. This is not something that will be threatening to HR.

2) Take the documents to an attorney for advice on how to proceed.
It's fair for law firms. It's not fair for product companies:

(a) It only works when employees have control over revenue; the partner model disenfranchises important company roles that happen to be distant from revenues.

(b) It rewards the best salespeople and punishes people who prefer less business-facing and more technical-facing work.

(c) It works for investments/companies who are valued on continuing revenues from services, but breaks down totally when the company is valued based on forward revenues, which almost every software firm is.

(d) It creates an up-or-out model in which it is almost axiomatic that team members who fail to make partner will leave; in other words, it creates teams comprised of short-timers led by an aristocracy of long-term strivers. It also begs for churn and selects for ladder-climbers.

Even lawyers don't like the biglaw partner model. It does work, but know what you're getting into.

(I co-manage a consultancy that is larger than most YC companies).
Well that decision is pretty necessary when you realize that JS has no syntax to indicate a function is variadic (we use the arguments magic variable, but use of it does not necessarily indicate that a function is variadic) and that implementation supplied functions are not required to have their arity exposed via Function.prototype.length (http://es5.github.io/#x15.3.5.1).

There's no way to know, even at run-time, whether a function is being called with too few or too many arguments, since that's equivalent to the halting problem. So the sensible alternative is just to default everything to undefined, and silently ignore extraneous arguments.

But yes, if JS was strict with how it handled argument definition lists and had support for indicating infinite arity, I'd agree, this would be a WTF, or at least strange. But I think it makes a lot of sense, all things considered.
I don't think either of those answers is correct.

Bettering yourself with hard work is a religious notion. It's not necessarily true, but it's good for people that own things that need to be worked on, like farmland. It keeps people working.

If the jobs are necessary, though, they should be paid with that in mind. They are not. Manufacturing production is up, but wages are stagnant. I don't think it's entitlement that makes people recognize that.

Most people that now trust in 'The Great Hand of Bettering Yourself By Hard Work' as you put it will be out of a job in 30 years; we've already started that trend.
An equity offering of 1-5% doesn't offset the reduced salary. That equity typically doesn't imbue the recipient with the same authority as the founders' equity imbues them. Yet, for example, Hire #1 in a two-founder startup is pretty darn close to sharing 1/3 rd of the risk as the founders. It's just that his risk is assumed to be amortized over the term of his tenure and slightly reduced by a salary, so it has the appearance of being significantly less than it really is, even though neither component of that assumption is valid.
Soylent to begin shipping on 4/25
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/19/elon-musk-divorce_n...
"I'm just a guy who got asked to do something for his country"
This seems like a dumb move by Uber that I wonder if they will end up retracting here soon. This new fee seems very half-baked, and I imagine it will actually hurt their brand rather than do what they think it will do. It's like this is a band-aid fix for the news flack they have been receiving lately about safety with UberX.

They seem to have so much traction in this space with drivers that I don't get why they don't charge the driver to do a background check / insurance check (as someone else in this thread mentioned). Or heck, maybe they should just be paying for these safety checks out of their own pocket. It would just add to their brand as naturally being a safe-to-use product. If a store was charging you to be helped by "safe" employees vs sketchy ones, you'd be outraged.

Based on this, assuming it's a fee that is here to stay, they will end up making a fortune from customers compared to what it "really" costs to implement the idea of safety (the checks/balances). A simple background check is roughly less than $25. I can't imagine them taking much more steps than the bare minimum. Uber will probably make their money back in a few dozen rides, then can simple reap the benefits. Plus, who knows if they are even doing these checks/balances or what they are doing. They could add this fee on, and there would still be no transparency on what they are even doing with the money to help with your safety as a customer.

This just seems like a very short sighted idea by Uber (if they actually want to help the customers/employees). I'm losing more and more respect for this company everytime I see their name mentioned in press/articles. Everything from the poor taste in aggressive sales tactics [1] to things like this. I consider this a "panicking" move by Uber, as if the once solid floor is slowly slipping away from under them.

[1] http://money.cnn.com/2014/01/24/technology/social/uber-gett/
Based on quick look, ConTeXt requires you to handle an unholy mixture of XML, XSLT and TeX (and maybe even Lua?), whereas PrinceXML last I checked was just (x)HTML+CSS.
Simply initializing a curl handle causes the /dev/urandom read -- so a large number of parallel curl requests easily triggers this issue.
I wish we would see more browser features (cross-browser standards, app deployment style, ability to run random 3rd party code relatively securely, app interoperability) moved into the OS, rather than more OS features moved into the browser.
Yeah, it's quite symptomatic of pulling numbers out of thin air to then claim a large amount of imprecision. No system that nonchalantly allows say, a six-fold variation for the first employee can be said to be absolutely fair and correct. And "it doesn't matter as long as everyone agrees that it makes sense" just begs the question.
DNA defines an organism, it doesn't leave. My point is that Yahoo! has a lot of operations and revenues that are based on a history. You can't just liquidate most of it and use the rest to create a hedge fund, that kind of thinking only makes sense long enough to write a pithy comment. The reality is that large corporations don't "pivot", they turn very slowly and they can only make a big turn with a long and concerted effort.
Be careful with the dissonance between your social circle and "everyone".

(In this case for instance - living in the midwest puts me into contact with a very large number of people who's beliefs align nearly perfectly with the television narrative).
It's not a major story every time they do a launch, but this one was definitely a major story, being the first test of their landing legs during a real launch.

Punishing worthy, interesting stories because there are too many other stories about the company seems really wrong.
Discuss the concept: Circuit
I also disagreed with the parent comment, but meta point: I'm not sure down voting is fair in this situation. Parent seems genuine and earnest in their comment. It seems like it'd be enough to simply reply with the counter point...
Well, not necessarily. The idea being that you're planning to have it kick in at 5:00 for 10 minutes, but in order to smooth out the energy distribution levels, they push it to 5:10 instead, so you're still using your 10 minutes of AC, just at a slightly different time... That's my take on it, anyway.
You're mixing valuation into mundane cash-flow problems, and also letting arbitrary circumstance help determine equity allocation; however you chop it up when the cofounder ponies up for plane tickets or whatnot, it'll seem fair at the time and a lot less fair after every member of the team has broken their backs getting the business off the ground.

Reasonable people can disagree on this point, but one thing that YC has said for years now that rings perfectly true to me: cofounder disputes can kill a company more abruptly than almost anything else. Rig your startup to minimize the possibility of resentment; you'll need all the unimpeded communications capacity you can get to resolve the problems that will arise intrinsically from your business.
In the context of Web development, what are the parts of the stack that are not the client or the server? I thought those were the things that defined the Web.
Drivers aren't all going to pay a fee. Some will drive less or switch to a competitor.
Judging from the ToC, this seems way more Operating Systems-centric than Computer Science, doesn't it?
I can only speak for my own experience, but everyone I have ever known has always been screwed by options. As such, I automatically assign a value of $0 to any options attached to an employment offer. You can pretend that yours are worth more thanks to your unique structuring as much as you like, but thanks to everyone else in the industry, you will still have to convince your employee that you are not just spewing delusion at him.

While I can't prove it, I believe I was once fired just to prevent my options from vesting.

As an employee, you're really better off with zero options and a higher salary 99.9% of the time. But that means the owners have to sell more of their equity to make payroll.

If you want to be a nice guy and keep the early employees eligible for big payouts, take your share of the buyout/IPO and give them bonuses out of that. No one trusts the option plans any more.
Grymt – because I didn't invent Grunt here
I don't think 'single-threaded' is a good model. multilingual people often code-switch[1] during conversation (when talking to other multilingual people who understand the same languages).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code-switching
No, it does not beg the question, because the question Spolsky is answering is practical, not epistemological. He's describing the best, simplest structure for equity allocation. He didn't give you a magic calculator.
The other issue with startup-bucks is their value is tied to situations that may affect your continued employment - They're not just a lottery ticket, they're a lottery ticket where "losing the lottery" and "losing your job" are correlated events, whereas if you're liquid, you can buy lottery tickets without this correlation.
Being a founder means looking after your employees and that's what this post is about. Entrepreneurship is not solely about building and creating things. You have to lead, manage, and look after the company and its most valuable asset, the employees. Employees need to be compensated properly, and the devil is always in the details, so he is diving into financial details on how to achieve that. Financials are not the point of this post, it is the consequence of proper employee compensation.
I think it's really up to you. If you do not feel comfortable being a sole provider for a stay-at-home-mom and a kid, do not do it. There is no point in doing something you feel forced into, nor will it bring peace into marriage. Resolve your marriage problems before jumping into irreversible decisions.
Any insight into why a company wouldn't allow forward exercising? The legal/finance team at my company refused to do it, though I wasn't given an explanation why.
I think that was called Lyft.
My personal experience is that the there is something about food in the US that really pushes you towards obesity.

I recently spent 2 months in the US (conference + work + road trip). It was relatively sedentary, but probably no more than my day-to-day life. I was careful not to consume any soft drinks - just water, tea (the coffee is unbearable) and the occasional beer. I ate very few snacks and sweets and usually swapped fatty side dishes with salads or cooked vegetables.

I did eat out a lot, but I also eat out a lot at home. I don't think my portion sizes were any bigger.
The result? Gained nearly 8 pounds! I was really surprised by this.

In contrast, during a 2-month long trip to china that included more physical activity, but also tons of very oily noodles, I lost around 4 pounds.

Btw, my typical diet is roughly mediterranean+beer (Tel-Aviv). In particular it includes lots of salads with olive oil, lots of hummus, chicken, fish, pasta, pizza, and various forms of junk food.
Simple isn't easy
The thing I try to think about in the context of me being the owner of a successful business, and not necessarily in software, is profit sharing, as opposed to equity sharing. Profit is a degenerate case of equity, in the sense that a large (albeit not whole) part of why you want to own equity is to own a share of the profit. At any rate, at the level of employee options, you want own enough equity to play the decision making role that holding equity enables you to. Beyond that, the value a market assigns to equity you own is (should be!) ultimately dependent on the profit that will accrue to that equity. At the same time, profit sharing is a lot less messy and much more rewarding to employees than equity. Sure, you're not getting a share of this asset that you've helped build, but from what I'm hearing, the story is the same with options. And profit should be easier to "give away" than equity from the founders' perspective, I think. I realize that sharing profit is complicated when businesses are in the red, but on the whole, I suspect there might be better value in the idea for all involved. Not that I have any idea about how exactly to go about sharing this profit, assuming it exists, I don't. I just happen to think it might be a more satisfactory path to take, assuming the fork on the road reads "Equity Sharing" this way, "Profit Sharing" that way.