skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
2 reasons.

Constitutional: If the government can force you to buy something from a private company there's not really much left that it can't do. In fact this was the argument the Supreme Court made when it refuted that governments argument that the Affordable Care Act was justified by the commerce clause--that such a broad interpretation of the commerce clause would essentially grant the federal government unlimited power. However, the justification that the Supreme Court actually went with, that the ACA was basically just a tax, is a bit ridiculous because it has almost all of the same problems.

Basically the difference according to the supreme court is that congress doesn't have the authority to make it illegal not to buy health insurance. They can't throw you in jail for not buying health insurance. But they can tax you for not paying health insurance and throw you in jail for refusing to pay the tax. The end result is pretty similar.

Practical: This has more to do with the Affordable Care Act after the Supreme Court made some alterations, rather than the bill that was passed.
The subsidies provided by the ACA are only for people making an income above some multiple X of the poverty line, and below some multiple Y. People with very low incomes were supposed to be covered by an expansion of medicaid, but the Supreme Court ruled that congress can't force states to expand medicaid. So in more than half the states people making just above a certain threshold get essentially free healthcare, while people making below it get nothing. In these states the ACA has done almost nothing to help the very poorest.

I would have honestly supported a single payer system and a universal (but progressive) tax instead of this public private hybrid with punitive taxes.

However, i think removing the ability for insurance companies to charge based on preexisting conditions, and the supplements provided for most middle class people will go a long way towards decoupling employment and health insurance. I generally support anything that will increase personal autonomy and allowing more people to work for themselves is a great way to do that.
101000 lines, 500 lines per error gives about 200 errors, not 20
Your blog should have been called "If you hire average programmers, try to get ones with related experience". Or perhaps "Beware: average programmers have a hard time quickly learning new paradigms".
Many of my small business buddies [+] start with their first few programmers on this sort of schedule. It generally fits within their/our budgets, gets them continuity versus project-based freelancers, and doesn't cause them to have to compromise on their quality of life through managing you constantly.

It isn't my place to mention the salaries I've heard but, anecdotally, they're a) more than anything I earned prior to going into business for myself and b) a substantial discount to market rates for FTE programmers.

So that's one option for you. Another is to be very good at making companies money and then, in negotiations, trade access to you for flexibility. Still another option is to own the company you're negotiating with.

[+] Context: solo founders or married couples running software small businesses with revenue in six to seven figures and no investor mandate to radically change the character of the business.
For everyone who asked, here is my github account: https://github.com/mihavidakovic

You can reach me at: vidakovicmiha1@gmail.com
I cannot imagine an article more wrong than this one.

* "A seasoned C developer with 10 years experience can not instantly morph into an advanced front end web application developer" - yes he can. Knowing things on bottom easily allows one to move up. It is the reverse that usually cannot happen.

* "Ignore the usual template based CV padding" - if you got the resume through an agency, it would have never made it to you without this bullshit. Sad but true

* "You often need specialists and not generalists." - false Specialists will become useless when that technology is no longer in use (you move form C# to java, for example). generalists will just help you with your next thing.

* "If you are looking for a C# or Java developer. You would expect their CV to contain those keywords, in context quite a few times." - false. If you have enough interesting things to put in your resume, there is no space to write "java" 1000 times.

* "I would expect to see some of the following throughout their CV; Design Patterns (MVC, Factories, Singletons, ActiveRecord), Classes, Objects, UML" - who the hell puts "classes" and "objects" on their resme. If i have to explain to you what OOP is and includes, I do not want to work for you!

* "Community participation" - maybe accurate. Some people do not like handing out their code for free on github, and instead get paid for it (people who contract for a living, for example). Really want to disqualify them?

* "if it becomes the next big thing, this person could be the one to keep your company at the forefront!" - If you hire based on technology instead of actual understanding (which it sounds like you do) then you will lose long term. Hire people who can actually learn, not those who happen to claim to know the latest buzzwords.

Of all the brilliant people I know, you would have discarded 100% at resume review stage. Probably not the best of ideas, that.
In fact, that's exactly what I meant, but thanks for trying to be my shrink.
> in practice it's nearly impossible not to have a distinctive sound, there are too many variables at play.

Of course not. High-end monitors are high-end precisely because they achieve indistiguishability. Between to pairs of speakers from different brands, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
This one made me think about public outrage against tobacco companies.

One minor theme in this article is that AECL denied knowledge of any reports of Therac-25 malfunctions even when, looking at a timeline of publicly-known events, such ignorance might be described as "implausible".

They don't seem to have been punished for this, and while I agree that it isn't laudable I also agree that it's not the greatest infraction. AECL really did care about the proper functioning of their machine. They really did look for problems. They cooperated with the FDA to a very great extent. It's hard to fault them for not thinking of testing "what if we enter incorrect configuration information, and then correct it within 8 seconds?"

But tobacco companies are routinely vilified for sitting on cigarette mortality data, as if this was by itself enough to make them irredeemable. They didn't even get off with a light punishment, much less the zero punishment AECL received. I suspect the difference, in the minds of many, is that AECL was a benign company advancing a useful purpose, while tobacco companies sold a product whose only use was to kill the operator. But that was legal then and remains legal today -- how can it be the justification for punishing them extra-hard for otherwise minor problems? AECL's misrepresentedly-unsafe product didn't even kill the operator; it killed random sick people who trusted the hospitals.
This article would be way better if each resource was in a separate blog post. :) #snark
This is the plague of facebook, friends posting a story with an inflammatory headline that often is more complicated when you read the details... but few do.

Curse you Gawker.
If Google is the one making the call about whether or not someone is a public figure, where exactly do you expect them to draw the line? Do you honestly expect them to draw a line in the public interest?

Personally, I'd expect them to do everything they can to minimize the cost of compliance (where that cost primarily includes the cost of processing requests and the risk of being hauled into court again). In principle, they also care about search quality, but, as long as they deal with the most blatant cases, I think the impact on perceived (not actual) search quality will be small and the impact on relative search quality might even be positive (in other words that the best-case scenario for Bing is matching the precision of Google's blocks and they might do worse).

In practice, I think that means wild overblocking of results that should be public because the cost of refusing a request is larger and more immediate. And so far as I can tell that's what we're seeing so far.
Correct, and we also spell things with an s where you use a z and others such as we spell "color" as "colour". The problem is, if I were to correct it for the UK, the US complain, if I correct it for the US, the UK complain. Since I am from the UK I will definitely make US related mistakes because I have not learnt your English.
>Not even close to true
>There's nothing remotely ironic

You seem to have made up your mind on this, but just in case you want to understand my view better:

A book with heavy anti-propaganda themes is used for propaganda purposes. That's irony. It's sick if Orwell knew this and yet agreed to his anti-Communist political writings being disguised in a story and used to destabilize the farms on other states. Because that means that all propaganda is equal, but some propaganda is more equal than others. That's sheer egoism, hypocrisy and political pandering.

A secret organization that uses propaganda and deception to destabilize other states, using black budgets siphoned off from "economic recovery plans" (which in reality was (motivated as) an anti-Communism plan), that's eerily close to a dangerous totalitarian state. Using popular news media and culture to further government propaganda is eerily close to the organized lying that Orwell so despised.

"If the director of CIA wanted to extend a present, say, to someone in Europe—a Labour leader—suppose he just thought, This man can use fifty thousand dollars, he's working well and doing a good job - he could hand it to him and never have to account to anybody... There was simply no limit to the money it could spend and no limit to the people it could hire and no limit to the activities it could decide were necessary to conduct the war—the secret war... It was a multinational. Maybe it was one of the first." --Thomas Braden

Orwell regarded propaganda as a feature of all modern governments but especially prominent in totalitarian regimes. His book may have become a Squealer the Pig. Accusing the other party of cheating, then both tabling an ace of spades.

You are free BTW to change the word "irony" to any word you like that makes that sentence more agreeable to you (fate/remarkable/without cause etc.).

In February 1976, George H. W. Bush, the recently appointed Director of the CIA, announced a new policy: "Effective immediately, the CIA will not enter into any paid or contract relationship with any full-time or part-time news correspondent accredited by any U.S. news service, newspaper, periodical, radio or television network or station." He added that the CIA would continue to "welcome" the voluntary, unpaid cooperation of journalists.
I remember this case study being taught to us at Engineering Ethics 101 while I was in school for my BSEE. I clearly recall the question posed to the room of about 50 would-be electrical engineers. In the case study it was defined that the engineer working on the software was different than the engineer working on the hardware. The class was to take the hardware engineer's perspective for the exercise. The question was "WHO IS RESPONSIBLE?"

Never mind the gravity of such a question being posed to a 18 year-old fresh out of high school. What shocked me was the professor's answer "THE SOFTWARE ENGINEER!"

I'm no programmer. I nearly failed to achieve my BSEE due to the required programming courses. But never in my life would I imagine to rationalize this type of blame onto someone else, let alone have it taught to me in such a point-blank manner.

I raised my hand and offered my objection. "HOW CAN YOU BLAME THE SOFTWARE ENGINEER, WHEN YOU DESIGNED THE MACHINE THAT WAS CAPABLE OF GENERATING ENOUGH RADIATION TO KILL A PERSON?" I further objected "YOU ALSO LEFT IT WITHOUT ANY HARDWARE-BASED FAILSAFE MEASURES, RELYING SOLELY ON THE SOFTWARE PERFORMANCE."

Dead silence from the class as the professor responded in a quip "NO. IT IS THE SOFTWARE ENGINEER'S FAULT. MOVING ON..."

EDIT: We had been given a photo-copy of an article on the accidents for the exercise. No where did I recall reading they had implemented a solution (this was in 2001) that was primarily hardware based. I would have loved to shove that in the professor's face.
Do you believe we will ever find missing flight MH370?
The conspiracy theory is a bit more complex. The NSA has two programs for upstream collection prior to 9/11 2001. THINTHREAD and STELLARWIND.

THINTHREAD was designed by long time NSA personnel to protect privacy while providing comparable digital surveillance capability to ECHELEON's capability in the analogue world.

STELLARWIND was the full take and archive program.

The White House chose the lower privacy technology, forced the people involved in THINTHREAD into retirement and then prosecuted the whistleblowers.

Covered in depth here:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/united-states-of-sec...
There is such a thing as object-oriented programming; the author just hasn't encountered it through the tools that he was led to believe were OO programming tools.

"I didn't find Tao in Java or GoF" does not imply "there is no Tao".
Because it's a brand new domain running on AWS.
Last year I realized something and then felt stupid for not picking up on it sooner. Gawker Media is exactly what would happen if Fox News launched a new brand with the same tactics targeting a younger, online, more liberal demographic.
The equivalence is in the rhetorical justification, not the methodology. In both cases, an appeal to security is used to trivialize the importance of privacy.

For the NSA, terrorism > privacy every time. For Karunamon, "censorship" > privacy every time. In both cases, the mechanism is an appeal to security in order to avoid a more nuanced discussion of the issue.

> to scrub the entire internet of information

And this is where the rubber hits the road. "Any possible risk of <bad thing here> means privacy doesn't matter". That's the sort of crap reasoning used by the NSA.

The fact is that the risk of what you're describing is incredibly low, and the good of the law outweighs even a high-magnitude abuse because effectively abusing this law in that manner is highly unlikely to succeed.

This is what I mean. After rejecting the "stop <bad thing here> at all costs!" logic, we can do an actual cost-benefit analysis and take into account the extremely low probability of <bad thing here> actually happening.

The information is still there, but private citizens don't need to pay hundreds/thousands to SEO firms in order to get embarrassing gossip sites off the first page of Google results.

Let's be clear: the dichotomy in this case is between lazy reporter's and SEO firm's right to profit, and an individual citizen's right to privacy. Since I view lazy reporters and SEO as parasites anyways, the choice is clear for me.

Reframing this issue as a "security from dictatorial abuse of power" is playing the same game as the NSA. And worse, it's disingenuous. If the mechanism is abused, Streisand effect always solves back. But there's no reason to go around harming private citizens just because "censorship!"
Raw Milk is harmful.

> Shouldn't the paucity of data preclude judgement one way or the other?

There is no paucity of data. There are very small numbers of people who drink raw milk. And thus there are small numbers of people harmed by raw milk. But it's pretty clear that raw milk is considerably riskier than pasteurised milk.

Whether adults should be allowed to make stupid choices is another topic. I'd suggest that adults should not be allowed to inflict those stupid choices onto children - who are going to be at even greater risk from harm.

You keep talking about death. Having to have kidneys transplanted because e coli has destroyed them is not death, but I hope you agree it's a severe consequence from eating food.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/raw-milk-debate/

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5608a3.htm

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2012/09/is-raw-milk-s...

> The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that of 239 hospitalizations caused by tainted dairy products from 1993 through 2006, 202 involved raw milk or raw-milk cheese. Nearly two-thirds of the patients were younger than 20. "Parents go to raw milk because they hear it's good for kids' allergies," says Michele Jay-Russell, a veterinarian and food safety specialist at the University of California-Davis who has studied the outbreaks. But children's developing immune systems are more vulnerable than those of adults. "They end up sickening their kids," Jay-Russell adds.
Well I have a lot of experience with 16 hour/day work weeks (have worked at banks most of my life). Yeah, you're right, it's not fun.

It really comes down to the time-sensitivity of your work. For someone in their 20s, I think the perfect balance is less than 80 hours/week but more than 40-50. If you're being paid two standard deviations over US median household income ($120k+), you're going to be expected to put some work-life balance on hold.

"Knowledge worker" makes you sound like you think programming is rocket surgery. VC is actually much closer to knowledge work than programming, and could more realistically have 16-hour work weeks.
I do 20-24 hours a week as a freelancer/consultant. And it is definitely productive experience. I have at times hopped to 40+ hours and never enjoyed it. I tried 30 per week but that was not better either. These 20-24 hours are highly productive and I spend the rest of the time with family/friends - or reading/experimenting.

The downside though - I sometimes feel I am wasting my time (because not many do so) and occasionally worry about opportunity costs.
Sorry but that is a very short list for anyone coming from a better established language.
yeah, video is pretty impressive!
I wonder that a lot too. I have friends who have tried it for sales and are liking it, but it's too early to tell. (It's not my process, by the way; here's a link 'tokenadult found about it: http://mavweb.mnsu.edu/howard/Schmidt%20and%20Hunter%201998%...)
Why can't the Fibonacci heap node store a pointer to the graph node and when it is updated, use that pointer to store the new pointer to the heap node in the graph node?
Oddly, my boss calls it a 'motivator' - with a nail in the end it's an 'incentive package'
I'm not your shrink, but thanks to the handy "Search" feature on the site, I had read every comment you've written that mentions Golang or Rust before I wrote that. I stand by what I wrote.

This probably isn't worth the debate, though.
Maps feature request: Next gas station in traveling direction
HN readers on Google / Apple maps team, it would be very nice for your app to tell us what the next gas station if we kept going in our direction on the road. No new app needed for this (incremental improvement) but this would be great to have!
That doesn't sound like a primary difference between the two? You can certainly leave up an old service.
> surveillance based business models

OT but I was watching a docu- on Goldman Sachs and found interesting parallels between the rise of the "surveillance" model in the tech sector and the financial sector. They both succeed based upon the successful monetization of customer data. That may be the content of your emails searches in Google's case or a client's trading position in Goldman's but the goal is the same.
Thank you for your reply and thank you for correcting me on this misconception. It seems I am putting too much energy into trying to fix a perceived problem instead of focusing on the more pressing concern of actual socialization.

Your time limit advice is solid. I can do an hour, maybe even 2 with fellow nerds before I get too overstimulated. I almost forgot I am capable of this, so thanks for the reminder. It makes me feel better about getting a job since I should have some time to recoup in my cube in between meetings if there aren't constant interrupts.

Maybe a job with constant interrupts and/or meetings I should just avoid.
I'd say it's easier if anything.
http://www.nimbusddos.com/
OMG they're stealing my rights!!!

Except not really. Google, despite what many might like to think, is not an "official" entity, it's a private company. They aren't disseminating information for the public good, whatever that is, but so they can slap an ad on it and make some profits. So what if Jo(e) Bloggs did something embarrassing a decade ago? If one of your friends was constantly bringing up things from years ago, you'd get tired of them doing so pretty quickly. Why should Google get to do it to make some money off of it? And what sort of gossip monger even wants this to be possible?
I down voted you for the VC being closer to knowledge work than writing software. Sorry but that is just plain wrong - on both ends.

Hen is right that expecting 40 hours out of a software engineer is ridiculous.
Shuffling with a too-small seed size will render the shuffle susceptible to brute force attacks; but in no way invalidates its use as a dodge for pathological (pre-sorted) arrays submitted to Quicksort in the course of normal usage. There's a better chance of getting eaten by a dinosaur than finding O(N^2) QS performance on shuffled data that comes from anything other than an attacking adversary.
> When we name our company you won't mind if we put my name first then.

That's an old problem really. Somebody has to go first. Home team over away team, alphabetical order, etc. I think we've solved that problem.

Of course 149:0 isn't representative. Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it won't though. The point is you do have to worry about edge cases. Take the ball possession graphic for example: Picture what that might look like for a color blind person. Not all that helpful.

I know they currently keep two different score boards but I'm not sure that has to be that way (could be though - I don't know). The site I use to check the scores merges them after the game but the FIFA website doesn't.

I'm not trying to be contrary btw, and I'm not sure why you're offended. I said I really like the design, but I do think they removed a lot of flexibility and clarity for no reason by changing most of the layout without putting all that much thought into why things look the way the currently look.

I may not know a lot about football but I do know a lot about design. I didn't even talk about the clock which looks gorgeous but (as others already pointed out) doesn't work that well.
Why was the title changed? It was originally the same as the post's; "The Fibonacci heap ruins my life".
Haha, you're probably right. If i change it now, the link will break and people who have already read it will likely be really annoyed if they stumbled on it with a different name lol
I do hire on such terms. I believe it will become more and more widespread in the course of years. James Altucher is right — in the future, there will be only business owners and temp staffers/freelancers instead of our usual "permanent" office jobs, with lots of legal obligations.
This might help http://petritsch.co.at/download/SOA_vs_component_based.pdf

It seems like a distinction is between organization-wide, discoverable services (SOA -> microservices) and reusable components that may or may not communicate via a remote protocol.

EDIT - From reading more about component-based, another difference is that services are less tightly coupled. They often run on different machines & OS's, and are also often written in different languages. In the case of microservices, a common theme in these resources is that each microservice is owned by the part of the organization that created it, which is pretty interesting.