skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
In the United States, both employers and applicants can withdraw an offer or stop a job application process for virtually any reason, at virtually any time. The exceptions are e.g. anti-discrimination statutes.

"You accepted an offer already." is a legal reason to bounce your application. So is "You mentioned you're a Cubs fan. We like the Sox." So is "We have no articulable reason at all for not going ahead with you", as long as that lack of reason is not a cover for our true reason, which is that you're black/a woman/a veteran (in certain states)/etc.

You might have a colorable claim for detrimental reliance if it had happened in reverse (Company A withdrew a job offer when they found out you had talked to B, after you had e.g. moved to their city in reliance on their offer), but that doesn't fit the fact pattern you're talking about.

In the future, you should exercise more discretion about what important details of your dealings with unrelated people you share with people you're in a sales situation with. If a company makes a job offer to you, and you accept, but you subsequently don't end up taking a job with them due to them being unable to reach agreement on details of the work, from the perspective of your job search this is a no-op. You have no particular obligation to disclose that fact to people.

Also, you should know that "I recently accepted a job offer, but decided that I didn't actually want to accept it." does not communicate "I am a competent professional who will be a headache-free high-quality productive worker at your organization." That doesn't mean you're forbidden to do it (God knows AmaGooBookSoft would bounce an offer in a hot second if they thought it over and decided "Actually, we have better options"), but again, I would be very discrete on disclosing that in an interview.
Jist: a little script for managing multi-file, multi-directory private gists
Sprint just bet a billion dollars against that. We'll see what happens.
> ultimately your argumentation also goes to show how important workplace safety regulations are

I'm not sure if you realize that across multiple industries the rate at which worker fatality stats improved either stayed the same or even declined when OSHA was introduced. In short, it's not clear at all that federal worker safety regs actually improve worker safety. You can perhaps see that best in the graph (Figure 34.1) on the third page of this PDF:

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/ca...

Regarding the study, I'm not saying you can't learn anything from studies. I am saying that when we have hundreds of studies showing that the minimum wage generally causes unemployment - and we do - one or two that say "but it's hard to see the effect of this one small change in this one small area with this one specific way of looking at the data" aren't enough to rebut that general presumption. If you want to "even start answering", you should read at least ONE study on the other side, not just look at data sources that agree with you. For instance, you could read this:

http://www.econ.ucsb.edu/~pjkuhn/Ec250A/Readings/Neumark_eta...

The unemployment stats I pointed to were comparing having a minimum wage AT ALL to not having one - bigger changes are more likely to be highly visible in the output data. BTW, to answer your question (somewhere else in this thread) about Germany, the last time it had very high unemployment was around 2005 when it had a high minimum wage and lots of "worker protection" laws. After the German labor market was freed up a bit (including getting rid of that minimum) the unemployment rate there dropped quite dramatically. Here's a chart of what that looked like:

http://mediaserver.fxstreet.com/Reports/95e05c46-b989-46ee-a...

(UPDATE: Wait, that's showing values in millions of workers, not as percentages, which is a little misleading. So here's a chart that shows the rate while comparing Germany to France over the same period:

http://thinkingoftheworld.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/chart-...
)
Wonder what changes, if any, come to the infrastructure, what with Sprint being CDMA and T-Mobile being GSM.
I think this is basically right, though I want to point out that this is not the same as self interest or corruption -- it's an instance of institutional bias. If I'm understanding you correctly, your argument (which I agree with) is that judges from the backgrounds that you list have spent years steeping in a certain intellectual environment where, simplistically, everyone is a patent maximalist (or, similarly, where nobody questions the fundamentals of the patent regime). They won't immediately (if ever) lose this mindset once they're appointed to the bench. The only reason this distinction matters, I suppose, is that it is fairer to the judges themselves than calling them "corrupt" or "self-interested." It's not the judges' fault if they have worked at patent firms for 30 years before they're appointed. It's the fault of the people appointing them for not selecting from a more intellectually diverse set of candidates.
That's not easy either as it'd require very heavy inlining by the compiler. Functions that accept just 'integer' have to check if the value is a native number or actual reference and process differently.
C/C++,Java* ,C# have it easier there - when you pass 'int'/'long' the receiver knows it's a native number.

* Fixnums support (headless objects) needed for non-Java lanaguages on JVM is still unimplemented to my knowledge[0]

[0] http://bugs.java.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6674617
It's not quite that bad. 3.0 was released in November of 2013. It's allowed to be certified under 2.0 until the end of 2014.

I'm not well-versed in the changes to know off the top of my head if any of the changes would matter to cloudfront.
>I have no idea how long he's been there. Calling the cops makes sense...

So, everyone is assumed to have no common sense, only you have it and thus become the default enforcer despite, admitting, not knowing the situation?
Dual Stack + DNS Search Domains = Host Roulette
A smarter way is to split both numbers to multiply into two halves, and pretend to do two-word arithmetic on a machine with words half the size.

In decimal, that means that you compute the product of two-digit numbers using single-digit multiplications and shifts (= multiplications by 10):

23 x 67
= (20+3) x (60+7)
= (2x3) x 100 + (2x6) x 10 + (3x7) x 10 + 3x7
Women in tech certainly aren't a problem! Feminism isn't a problem. Pointing out problems isn't a problem. Affirmative action isn't a problem. Even being angry isn't a problem.

Another poster made a useful comparison to QA. One imagines an otherwise mild-mannered QA Engineer becoming righteously angry about a very scummy feature, or a software defect which threatens lives. But this QA Engineer has better and worse ways to channel that anger into buy-in for a fix. The anger in itself may be useful by leading to useful things, but it may also be harmful if it leads to harmful things. Anyone can understand this if they want to.
Because it's a tech event. When was the last time you saw someone wear a playboy bunny outfit to a tech event?
I really hope this doesn't go through. T-Mobile has been great for me, and shed a lot of the anti-consumer policies of the other carriers. I'd hate to regress.
Plea bargaining is more like a gambling buy out. Plea "guilty" and we'll guarantee you a lighter sentence, plea "not guilty" and be prepared for a long and expensive trial, but you might get out of it.

Actually, the trial judges in the U.S. have a pretty good reputation as far as fairness and incorruptibility (sure it happens, but it's not really common).

It's better than say Italy, which is considered pretty suspect or Japan, where you know the conviction rate is like 90%.
>Sexuality is irrelevant in the context of a tech event.

why? who decided it? and how it can realistically be done - forced ingestion of chemical castration pills by all the attendees? Wherever you have people, you'll have sexuality. May be oppressed, yet it still will be there. Only mister Data could turn his emotions chip off, and even he liked to have it on.

When people do such blanket statements without firm grounding in reason and facts, usually it is a statement of power, ie. in this context it would mean "Sexuality [of people/group i designate as such] is irrelevant ..."
I'm curious of the technical side of things, though.

Sprint is CDMA, Tmobile is GSM. That doesn't mix well, at least compared to a ATT/Tmobile merger. As a current Tmobile user, I'd like to keep the ability to switch out SIM cards, but if Sprint buys out Tmobile and replaces it with their network, that may not be possible.
Is there any way for the public to verify that the bounty can actually be claimed by doing the work? Or do they have to rely on the honesty of the person announcing the bounty?

In other words, is there something that stops me from saying that a certain computation that I want people to do will allow claiming the bounty associated with a certain Bitcoin address, when in fact the private key is some completely distinct key that I control and that has nothing to do with the time-lock computation?
Soon it will just factor out to "you can be arrested at any time". The reason will be unimportant, or rather, will revert to the mean of "didn't like something about you".
Somehow I doubt we'll see any automobile pulling a trailer hooked to the tailpipe to collect all the exhaust! b^)
Agreed - I saw a later comment by the poster which shows I misinterpreted the comment. My original point still stands though, just not applicable to the poster.
Yes but then you are hauling around an extra 100kg of unused batteries for 95% of your trips.
Got mine the moment I clicked the button and it launched the Mac App Store App.

Check purchases tab in the App Store app?

(say that 3 times fast)
The Mormon church objectifies women albeit with some reverse psychology going on - the need for women to cover up and not dress 'sexy' is just another way to objectify women. Mormon males not watching 'R' movies is the same - reverse psychology. Some women - most women - really do want to be more than some frumpy Mormon daughter/wife/grandma. Furthermore, with the Mormon church there is no room in the priesthood for women - how can you skip that and move on to the objectification debate?

Normally I keep my opinions on the LDS church to myself lest I offend some Mormon, yet, on places like HN I think it is better to encourage the indoctrinated to escape belief in mythical sky gods and false prophets. You need to quit that church and start to see, love, understand and enjoy being with women on a bigger canvas than allowed by your church.
Cocoapods with Swift
Paraphrasing a friend from Amazon:

"Man, we have no clue what they're going to announce. Whatever it is has been completely black-boxed. I'm guessing it might be a 3D projecting phone, but that's based on exactly nothing. Plus, I'm not invited, so... hah."
Summoning user?id=nilium

Please make your wallpaper [1] work for this phone.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7843664
PCI DSS 3.0 is a mess at the moment.
Under PCI DSS 2.0 merchants can relieve most of their PCI DSS burden simply by ensuring that the infrastructure and services that process those payments are PCI certified.
The simplest way to do this is simply redirect the customer to a PCI certified payment gateway.

PCI DSS 3.0 is much more broad and ambiguous, the current interpretation seems to be that every aspect of a merchants website and infrastructure needs to be PCI compliant, regardless of if it ever sees a credit card or not.

The reasoning for the changes seems to be an increased number of compromised websites that would normally not accept credit cards directly, but once compromised the intruder can modify the website as they see fit and fool customers into providing card details.

As you can imagine, the amount of work and money it would take to certify every aspect of a merchants web infrastructure is prohibitive, as a result until more clarification arises around the requirements, QSA's are recommending qualifying under PCI DSS 2.0 rather than 3.0.
Is English not your first language?

It's totally acceptable to apply to multiple companies and negotiate with multiple offers in hand; you could say to B, "Well, A is offering me ${FOO} a year and two week's vacation, but I'm really excited about the work at B; can you match their offer?" or something like that. But once you accept an offer, it's generally understood that you stop looking for a little while.

It's also totally acceptable to look for a new job while you're working; people get jobs they don't like, or jobs change, and people want something new.

But what it sounds like you've done here is applied at a company, gotten an offer, accepted it, and started looking for new offers immediately. That's unusual, and is definitely setting off some alarms for HR. You're worried that you won't like the job, but there's no way for you to know; you haven't started yet. You're jumping ship before you've even gotten on board; why would B extend an offer to you? How do they know that you won't accept an offer with them and then immediately start talking to C?

The thing to do is to not accept an offer you're not happy with; if one company gets back to you and you're still waiting to hear back from somebody else, it's okay to say "Can I have some time to think about your offer? I'm still waiting to hear back from some other companies, and I want to make sure I have a good understanding of my options before committing". And then you can say to the other companies, "I need a decision from you soon; I have an offer from A and I want to respond in a timely manner to them."

edit: Also what patio11 said; he is eminently qualified to give job-search advice, especially with regards to things like negotiations.
I would be surprised if desktop and mobile Safari didn't have comparable rendering capabilities.
Can anyone speak to what this means for QCD and whatnot? (Let's assume that this particle is in fact what they say it is. If I understand correctly, the analysis means that they definitely observed a real thing; however we can't have quite that much confidence that it is actually a bound state of four quarks.)
No answer to my question but you ask your own? IMO you're wilfully avoiding the point about the appropriateness of sexualised imagery in general, but nonetheless I'll answer your question: from the original source.

http://bluesky.chicagotribune.com/chi-techweek-chicago-contr...

"Gather with us as we celebrate the launch of our charity initiative with Urban Alliance, the only year long employment program for under resourced high school seniors in Chicago." Excuse any transcription error.
Where did you see about an escrow? Or are you asking hypothetical?
Since the site does not address this issue, there is nothing to stop the site from up and leaving with all the coins. With a mixer, they can easily disappear too.

There is however a phone number listed here, https://bitbook.ie/contact
I think this might be the first time I ever LOL'ed from something I've read on HN. Good call.
I don't find the photo particularly scandalous, but taken in the context of the tech industry issues with sexism, it definitely shows a lack of awareness on the part of the organizers.

I would hate to see us become so politically correct that we can't show a picture of people having fun to advertise a party. But, it's not that hard to find stock images of both men and women who are attractive, having fun together and not dressed up like playboy models kissing one another.
Monadic Parsers: Implementing a micro Parsec
Further, the mass production of such parts due to their inclusion in phones is essentially the reason why inexpensive drones are viable today.

Chris Anderson famously called it the peace dividend of the smartphone wars.
This seems pretty facile. What about the very many cases where both parties in a patent dispute come from "the industry whose cases [the Federal Circuit] hears"? I would think that, in many cases, the defendant in a patent suit would come from the same "industry" as the plaintiff. That's why they're using the same or similar technologies, no?

Remember, also, that when these judges were in private practice, they probably did about as much defense work as plaintiff-side work.
Interesting #lifehack: Use a wooden spoon to block part of your screen
Good news is if this deal doesn't go through, T-Mobile gains to make over a billion dollars to make its network better/faster. * AT&T paid about 4 billion in cash and spectrum when the last merger fell apart..
I only count two who worked in private practice as patent lawyers. Working in-house or teaching results in a very different set of incentives. What does my criminal law professor or my securities law professor think about criminal or securities laws? That we should have them? Probably. That they should always be stronger? Quite often the opposite.
Spoken exactly like what I'd expect from a teaching field that is doing everything possible to obsolete itself.

Look, let me sum up the problem with CS education in a nutshell: today, when I think about hiring someone, I basically don't care about their CS education. This is increasingly what I hear from my colleagues as well. Degree in CS means more or less nothing. Notice that that's not the case in Chemistry (since the author is fond of comparing fields). What does that tell us? That whether you like it or not, you are doing a poor job teaching them, or that we have very different definitions of CS. Which is fine, after all, there are degrees in accounting and degrees in math that are separate, maybe we need to move to that model.

If your program graduates students that have never used version control, never committed to a single open source project, or have a difficult time picking up new languages/technologies, then maybe you're teaching them "something", but that something isn't what the world cares about. So unless they go and become teachers of this thing you call CS as well, its time to change what you're teaching.

(BTW, I rarely find that these recent grads have done NP reductions or any of that kind of thing that would at least justify not teaching them all that "useless" industry stuff)
Use of data to improve Soccer: How Klinsmann Transformed Team USA’s Play
Huh... that's actually the opposite impression I got from the photo. While there is always an element of "performing" in a photo booth, I don't see any obvious male influence. Trying to put myself in the shoes of a woman getting this invite, these photos would be encouraging. It's evidence that A) women actually show up and B) that women can relax and have fun at these events. That's why I was so surprised at the reaction.
If he is trying to prefer women to help balance out the team I would think he is trying to maintain gender equality in another respect.
Woah, tons of straw men in here. If you read this and believe that the fact that they chose attractive women is the problem, than you should probably either reread it or stop having opinions about things.
My guess for why it made it into Windows 8 isn't that it was randomly suddenly worthwhile, its because a multi-monitor setup becomes more important in the new workstation/tablet hybrid tool that Microsoft is creating. I carry my Surface around, using it as a laptop or tablet, but at home or at the lab, it plugs into larger external monitors to enable maximum productivity.
I can't speak for the TEM in STEM, but for science it doesn't really matter that much where you do your undergrad. In fact, if you choose well, it's better to go to a less prestigious university if you will have an opportunity to do actual research (and take full advantage of that opportunity). It's a lot more important to have solid bench experience than a degree from Harvard. A degree is just a piece of paper. If you aren't happy with where you're at when you are finishing up your undergrad, you should also consider using a masters degree as a stepping stone to a better PhD program. It matters a lot more who you do your PhD and postdoc with (and to a lesser extent where).

On the issue of brains and talent, this is something I didn't appreciate for a long time. People get to the top through a lot of hard work and dedication. It's not like a Hollywood movie where there are people that are just born brilliant and are able to make things happen without effort. When you see someone college-age doing amazing things, it's usually because they've been working at it for a long time before college. If you focus beyond just passing tests, four years is a fair amount of time to catch up. When you see a brilliant 60 year old scientist, that outcome is the result of a career of hard work.

You will go far if you spend some time thinking about what you need to do to get yourself to the next level and start acting like it. If you want to be in academia, be the undergrad that thinks and works like a grad student. When you're a grad student, act like a postdoc; when you're a postdoc, act like a professor. And it shouldn't be just an act, you need to actually take on the responsibilities and do the work of someone at the next level. Let your work speak for itself rather pretending to be at the next level by talking down to your peers. When you think this way, it makes it very easy to take the next step. People making the hiring decisions won't have to think very hard to imagine you stepping up to the next level.
Techweek Reaps A Whirlwind With Sexist Party Invite Backlash
Should women avoid dressing provocatively in public, lest they portray themselves (and thus other women) as non-human beings?
The problem with this approach is that the scam sites start with proper payouts until they can build enough trust to run off with a large take.
But go back just 50 years and there were shenanigans aplenty - and the years before weren't the peaceful settled picture we often have in mind.

France was far more stable than England for several centuries before 1789.

(You're right of course. But 1700 is a convenient cut off date, and belies the fact that pragmatism in the mix was a direct result of just how horrible was the interregnum.)
Check out the National Stye Guide and the average field position plots around the middle of the article. This is great visualization.
How to Read the Mind of a Wildfire
The past, present and future
I used to have an online gambling website, and it is very lucrative to be a publisher. Mainly bc the model is different than traditional affiliate programs. The typical mode is that if you drive someone to sign up, you get a flat amount ($50-150) and a percentage of that users' LIFETIME input into the website (typically 8-10%)
The point of this party (if you read the small print in the image) is to have a fun charity event strictly before the conference starts. It is explicitly outside the timeline of the "tech event."

if they are developers, they would not go to a tech event dressed like that.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that they did exactly that.
> As long as people care far more about the plight of women than the plight of men ... we're never going to achieve anything resembling equality.

I'm unclear on your thesis here: is your position that the reason women are disadvantaged in society in general and tech in particular because we "care more about the plight of women"? Because that seems illogical.

But the only other interpretation I can think of is that you think men are at a disadvantage to women, which is a laughable assertion.

Your account is 6 days old, of course, so I may be just feeding a troll here.
http://clang.llvm.org/docs/LanguageExtensions.html#builtin-f..., the search for "Checked Arithmetic Builtins"