skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Also, in attempt to be more objective about this divide, I've found it useful to note that there's a general tendency in intellectuals to be in one camp or the other: unifier or multiplier. I've seen this issue taken up by William James, talking about 'rationalists and empiricists' and by Freeman Dyson in an essay about 'Manchester and Athens'. At the highest heights of intellectual accomplishment, you find people who revel in particulars, and others who love only principles, each typically having an amount of disdain for the other approach. Both are necessary, though.
We are looking for Rails people, hit us up!

https://blockscore.com/jobs
The QF-16s are unmanned but they are not computer-controlled. I believe the argument here is for computer-controlled airliners not remotely piloted ones. After what happened to one of our Scan Eagle UAVs[1], the last thing we need is the tragic loss of life and PR nightmare of an unmanned commercial airliner getting hacked and crashed.

[1]http://rt.com/news/iran-drone-hacked-downed-353/
Steve Jurvetson wants to disband the TSA. The following text is copied from his post: https://www.flickr.com/photos/jurvetson/315439026

---

I focused on scenarios for removing all security checkpoints and delays from a customer perspective.

Imagine checking in at a kiosk to get your boarding pass, and going though no security lines to board the plane. Bring anything you want with you, but know that the flight is under video surveillance, like retail stores today.

I assumed technologies that work in rudimentary form today and will benefit from Moore’s Law. (The only 12-year forecast that I felt confident about is the continuation of the 100-year abstraction of Moore’s Law, bringing a 256x computational advance by 2018).

So, I started with the assumption that computer-controlled flight would be possible. It’s a pretty safe assumption given what we already have today.

With no cockpit, everything changes. The potential for harm is greatly reduced if the plane cannot be navigated from within. No hijacking. No use of the plane as a weapon.

Bombs become the only threat, and a reduced one.

Personal weapons? A gun or knife-fight could do more damage in a restaurant, or many large group gatherings. Why bother with a plane where criminal activity will be recorded, and the only people harmed are on board?

As for bombs, passive sniffers in a free flowing airport gateway are more plausible than detecting improvised weapons than could be used against a pilot.

At the airport, a quick fingerprint biometric would be a natural way to get a boarding pass (as 12 million people have already done in Florida to get access to an amusement park). So even smuggled bombs would have more capture and downside risk for a terrorist cell than other targets.

Pie-in-sky ideas: hardening a UAV to bombs should be easier than current planes; smaller planes could lower risk; luggage could fly separately; biologic weapon sensors could trigger a flight path to quarantine, etc.
Holy Cow this is a very good idea.
How do you usually meet up with these people? Asking this in another way, how do non-tech sectors find programmers? How do they know the need one?
Not entirely. I am simply stating that, our simulations are indistinguishable because, 'we' are simulating them. The simulations aren't going to get any better than what 'we' understand.
That being said, it doesn't imply we have a perfect understanding of the Amoeba down to the last particle of it. (since we absolutely have no idea what it is).
But then I'd have to use Vim :(
then somehow someone hacks you

fkd
Say whatever you want about shell scripts, but that is not what tight coupling means.
Has anyone got something similar for Windows? I'm trying to teach myself x86 assembler but the executables produced out of gcc/VS2013 are massive.
It is called "attitude indicator" and there are multiple AIs installed on larger planes. The problem is that a pilot need to determine what exactly failed: either airspeed indicator, or horoscopes, or both, or something else entirely.
QF-16 is "remote piloted" not unpiloted. I don't think the QF-16 has more than basic autopilot (hold heading and altitude) integrated. This is partly due to the QF-16As being Block 15 jets.
The effects of a moderate Hacker News link to here
Why are you married to Rails? Sure, it's pleasant to work in, but being so tied down to one stack is an antipattern considering how quickly technology moves. Sell yourself as more of a talented full-stack developer who can apply knowledge and experience to any stack. If you think about it, all the things you've learned in Rails (the ORM, the MVC paradigm, front-end/API separation) all exist in other stacks.
I am trying to hire Rails programmers and everyone I talk to from other founders to recruiters to lead devs all report the same problem: too many Rails jobs way too few available programmers.

Unfortunately I am not looking for remote workers though. Good luck in your search, I am sure you will find something!
Deep-sea anglerfish captured off Monterey
The reputation as a "money sink" is somewhat undeserved. It can require a several hundred to several thousand dollar up-front investment, depending on how you play, but it's the only hobby I've ever seen where that investment can not just maintain but grow in value. I'm probably up $10,000 lifetime from Magic, though I got in early and invested heavily in older cards, so I'm something of an outlier. Absolutely anyone with the time to devote to learning the market can at minimum take very few losses.

At the pro level, not that many players actually own the cards they play with. They're borrowed from collectors or loaned from shops. The cost of a deck is basically not an issue at the pro level. At the grinder level, yeah, the up-front cost can be.

Most pro players probably do come from a reasonably privileged background, because you need to be able to spend the spare time to get good and have the resources to get to higher-level events to get good and qualify for the Pro Tour (the Online version mitigates travel costs somewhat, but it itself comes with costs). But I doubt most people trying to get to the Pro Tour are not any more wealthy than an average WoW player. Most grinders are college-age guys living on the cheap.

Money is not the differentiating factor. IMO not being all-consuming is a factor (you think about it all the time, but you can't play it all the time short of spending $10/hour Online). If you're a pro performing well enough to be invited for an entire season, you technically only have to play four one-week events per year. Being physical and physically social is a factor. Being more analytical is a factor; notable numbers of pros have gone on to careers in stock trading, gambling odds-making, etc.
You know the blog is just a clickbait when it capitalizes the name of the project wrong.

(on the wiki, the big Spelling header could not be more explicit)
Here is anecdotal evidence from my own company. As someone who is hiring developers, my belief is more and more front end development is moving to js frameworks like Angular/React/Ember and that means the backend becomes "just" an API. Rails is still a very pragmatic choice for an API, but as SOA becomes more popular, micro-services are very easily written in any language, golang, js (node), etc.

Also, as a developer you better get used to "accumulating all the knowledge and skills" but be willing to stay up to date on the trending technologies. It is the best way to stay marketable, and I think its a lot of fun too!

PM me what timezone you are in and some brief overview of your experience and contact info.
I found that it depends on type of jobs available. There are tons of full-time rails jobs everywhere, but smaller/remote projects tends to be more on the edge of things and more often use new, hip, technology. So there is less smaller rails projects and more smaller Node projects.
Which Ubuntu release did you find to be using Mir as a default?
The most obvious flaw, a programmer is only worth 5.7 times their 1999 salary if their work is generating 5.7 times as much revenue as it would have in 1999. I see no evidence that this is the case. If it were the case, and the vast majority of programmers are earning 1/6 of what their work is worth, then there is a huge opportunity that you can exploit to get rich. Go for it, and let us know how it works out.
+1, Related reading (all from Bill Karwin of SQL Antipatterns fame):

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/192220/what-is-the-most-e...

http://www.slideshare.net/billkarwin/models-for-hierarchical...

http://karwin.blogspot.in/2010/03/rendering-trees-with-closu...
I find it nightmarishly hard to find rails programmers with experience - not just the latest App Academy/etc. grads. Maybe it's your market? In SF, there's still fierce competition
If you're in the San Francisco area, please apply for our Rails position! We're a small team (the whole company is 9 people, but we've been doing extremely well) making an awesome product, and we're actively looking for great Rails developers. :)

https://www.noredink.com/jobs
If people want Node, why not learn Node? It's all the same stuff - you're taking HTTP requests, interacting with some data from a database and sending it back down to the response. You already know what's going on, the language you use to do so isn't that important in the end.

I went from C# to Node with few regrets. I play around with Ruby and Python from time to time. Mentally they're all very similar.
That's a blog post of its own.

I suggest going to networking events outside of the tech bubble.

Many people in other industries aren't technically backwards or technophobes. The smart ones understand the value of an efficient IT system. Just like us, they enjoy the latest gadgets. They just haven't met many developers in tech that tried to engage them.
I'm afraid this is normal and will happen to you several times in your career. It is just the nature of this industry, which is more driven by fashion than anyone is comfortable admitting.
Do you think that giving someone an artificially inflated OKCupid match really rises to the standard of an unethical experiment though? OKCupid doesn't tell you who to go on a date with; they just suggest potentially good matches. (Right? I'm married and don't tend to troll dating sites, but that's my understanding.) You're free to read their profile, exchange messages, etc., before arranging a date. If it is indeed a bad match, then most likely you would realize your incompatibility early in the process.
> Hardly, there is no such thing as intellectual property.

There absolutely is such a thing as intellectual property.

> With property you have exclusive access over a physical item

With property, you have exclusive rights with regard to something, but the exclusive rights may not be specifically to "access", and it may not be in a "physical item". Intangible personal property (which includes intellectual property, but also lots of other property rights in nonphysical things -- like securities, rights to legal action, etc.) is hardly a new thing.

> The government created this artificial privilege

Property is artificial, man-made, exclusive privilege with regard to something -- all of it is created through government, and all of it is enforced with threats of violence.

> It is in no way akin to property

Even your own description is exactly like every form of property.
I'll second running Kara with friends. I was never a hard core raider, but even a holy-shadow goofball like me could consistently contribute (and I still contend that was most fun priest build to date). Add a few players determined to have fun and crack jokes in spite of a few wipes, and good times were had each week.
My company has a technical track in theory but over the last 2 years I have observed that mediocre managers keep getting promoted regularly whereas only absolutely outstanding engineers move up.
If you want to make decent money, management is the way to go. At least in my company.
How to Make A Game
Ish123, I can't reply to your comment but you're exactly right[1] and I can't help but wonder if pilots are trained this way, someone like me (I have never flown any kind of plane my entire life) and you came to this conclusion then why did they react the way they did? The whole situation just seems so simply avoidable. Then again, I'm not flying a huge plane with hundreds of people on it in darkness with pounding thunder/rain/lightning and all sorts of gizmos blinking and making noise at me.

It almost seems like something else should be added to the training curriculum and routinely tested that hardens pilots nerves and prepares them for some of the most stressful situations they could ever encounter such as before grunts go off to combat.

[1]http://www.technologyreview.com/view/424125/flight-447s-fata...
I've always wondered why we don't have more sophisticated autopilots for trains. I recognize the importance of having staff on a train to deal with a lot of the engineering, break, track and other equipment issues, but It's unclear to me why the actual driving (braking/acceleration) of the trains is still done by (often bored out of their skulls) train operators.

I'm guessing the big element that was missing was sensing track obstacles and braking accordingly - in Singapore/Dubai they have doors limiting access to the track, and in vancouver they have (tending to failure in the winter) track sensors to see if anyone has hopped onto the track.
Yeah it's basically an assortment of radiation sources, e.g. the things we routinely use in medicine and obscure industrial cases.

The short-lived stuff could see immediate use in various contexts that need access to radioactive sources, or in RTG batteries.

The long-lived stuff (plutonium, mostly) can be used as fuel in reactors that currently exist mostly on paper, but would work if there was money to build them.

There isn't a radioactive waste problem. There's an anti-nuclear political problem :(
And for the management side, growing an engineering team from 1 to N will teach you more about people and (early-stage) organizational dynamics than any number of case studies. However, learning by doing -- and potentially failing -- doesn't appeal to everyone, and you can certainly balance the "on the job" learning with book-learning too.

I did an executive MBA, and plan to move into people management at some point. I enjoy it and I love the feeling of empowering a team to be excellent. At the same time I feel that you need a solid base as a respected individual contributor, especially if you are leading the team technically rather than playing bug-assignment Tetris -- which is what I'm focusing on for now. Management can seem like a dirty word in engineering, but some of us like doing it.
That's okay, natural intelligence is really only pseudo-intelligence, too.
I dunno about 205/21 dollars but I do know people will think you are copying the price from the store if you put it as 199.99.
Personally, reading through a bunch of math doesn't help me understand how an algorithm is working.

I've always found it far easier to scan through some psuedo-code and read a few paragraphs explaining it. At this point, I can usually look at the loops, recursive calls, and "structure", and get a pretty good idea of how it's working, what it's big-O run time would be, and why. Full blown formal proofs and theorems just don't help my understanding.

I agree the math is important for research and writing papers, and proving one algorithm is better than another, but for practical purposes (i.e. actually implementing an algorithm in real code) it's just not very helpful. And the reality is that most people learning about algorithms are going to spend a lot more time implementing algorithms than they will writing papers and doing algorithm research, so I'm not sure a math heavy book like CLRS is really the best undergraduate text.
Sure, i don't normally like linking to TC but this has a pretty good roundup of links: http://techcrunch.com/2014/11/20/following-pressure-from-u-s...
Why do you believe we can train automated cars to deal with emergency situations or adverse conditions, but not airplane autopilots? What, fundamentally, prevents innovations in processing power and automation systems from being able to do this?

Your listing of current problems is fairly accurate as to the road blocks, however, your insistence that technology can't overcome them seems knee-jerk and unreasoned.

> Replacing pilots in commercial aircraft is something that will not happen in my lifetime, or perhaps ever. It is one of the worst ideas I have ever heard. Not everything can or should be automated for the sake of automating them.

This in particular is obviously hyperbole (at least, being charitable), since the obvious case for computers taking over from pilots is that they solve several issues: their reaction times are considerably faster, they're considerably better at reasoning about the physics of a situation, they learn from all situations encountered by any artificial pilot (or actual pilot) we have records of, they have greatly larger numbers of training hours, and they don't suffer fatigue.

Arguing that computers will never take over for pilots or that it's a bad idea requires that you raise an argument about the limits of computers that is in the /future/.

As an aside, your comment about doctors is also wrong: I'd trust Watson to do diagnosing over most doctors I've met, and only expect my comfort with robotic doctors to rise as technology improves. I expect that the next major improvement we'll see is fully robotic surgeons.

Again, your post reads as partly just unreasoned, anti-technology ranting, but I feel I should give you a chance to explain those points.
The problem is then deciding which ideas are deserving of debate and which should label the thinker "dislikable"

What rule could I use that overcomes my biases and makes that decision?
I've heard of these guys, but that's all: http://www.mirrorplacement.com/
I think this might be more difficult than it seems, given that Rust allows you to store references in structs. I'll ask the developers sometime.
Here is a screencast example of using it with Vim: http://quick.as/dgof2p7
One of dozens to use that in the title. Hence the reference to the author's names.
Right, I guess I was getting at the 'cost' of energy would be he opportunity cost of not selling it back to the grid which is typically the retail price in areas with net metering. Although in off-the-grid situations, you're right that there wouldn't be any incremental cost to charging the storage.
As a coder that's soon to be taking on a management responsibility, I definitely feel the weight of it, but I'm up for the task of figuring out leadership. I might well be more suited to it than a lot of engineers would, but I also think that management and leadership is less hard than it seems and that engineers would actually be better at it than their superiors if they would just give themselves a chance.

The trick to it is to realize that it's not, actually, a skill, when you break it down. It's an opportunity to structure part of the operation of the company the way you want to structure it. You can take all those ideas you have about how to run the company better and put them into practice on a small scale. You do not have to give up engineering, you're just also engineering at a bigger level than just with machines. You can and should still program, and still avoid pointless meetings by bringing your laptop to them and working through them.

You're engineering human systems now too. There's no conflict with the other machine-type engineering, because the two are intended to work in concert. So don't create one where it didn't before exist. Humans are easier to engineer than machines in many ways. You can tell a human to do what you mean, humans are smart and machines are stupid, a machine will only do what you tell it to do. You can't tell a machine to exercise judgment or grant them power or flexibility, they wouldn't know what to do with it. But grant flexibility to a human and he'll make your job much much easier.

Power necessarily involves freedom and flexibility, if you've an expectation to meet a responsibility without giving yourself the latitude to meet that expectation your own way, including the willingness to put your foot down to ensure your turf is protected, then you are putting yourself through hell. It's simple, decide what you need to get the job done, then acquire the resources, then follow through. If the expectation is unreasonable, then change the expectation. It's not hard, all you have to do is explain to people that it's unreasonable and offer an alternative. As an engineer, you should have already learned the skill of dazzling people with techno-babble. As a manager, they have to take your arguments seriously and compromise with you. You can't promote someone to management and then proceed to ignore their opinions. That's the whole point of the promotion.

I go home after eight hours. My boss will put in ten hour days but I won't volunteer to. I fully expect my new report will go home after eight like I do. When I wanted to move to flex time I just started coming in later and when my boss noticed, I just said I was going to choose my hours from here on out. My boss insulated me from office politics until I was ready to deal with it and I will extend the same protection to the new guy. I was somewhat worried that the promotion would come with strings attached. If anything they're more worried that I'll get cold feet than they are that I won't measure up. So they've been kissing my ass extra hard lately.
I really wish it would also allow `~/.config/cargo/config` just like `~/.config/git/config`.
It's totally unreasonable for them to try and make some moral argument that they should be allowed to have it if they aren't willing to pay.

Absolutely, yes it is worth hanging on to. "Dumping it in the trash" is such a biased metaphor. Having self respect and not being a pushover pays gains in the long run, so yes it's worth it.
I spent a weekend on a cruise ship staffed by robot bartenders
our simulations are indistinguishable because, 'we' are simulating them.

When we build bad simulations, then we can distinguishable them fine. Then we understand more, and do better, and then they become indistinguishable.

The simulations aren't going to get any better than what 'we' understand.

That's not entirely true. We simulate vision systems using RNNs, and we don't entirely understand how they learn.
That's cool; what are the repercussions of getting such a card, though? Do you get on TSA's no-fly lists? Are you automatically exempt from holding jobs in the Government? Something else that I'm missing, perhaps?
May I recommend EvE? It has an almost silly amount of gamer-driven complexity with a reputation for ruthlessness mostly unseen elsewhere. I liken it to a fun reminder that the real world isn't such a nasty place; and if I ever feel it is, I just need to try to fly a transport through low security space. Preferably with a week's worth of planet junk.

It also happens to be a fun game. But it's super easy to make a simple, badly timed mis-click and lose your stuff to a random gank trap. (And no, ship insurance really doesn't help all that much.)
> We have had driverless trains for decades

Yet we are only still trialling driverless trucks on mine sites. Even with the sites modelled entirely (and frequently), and with LiDAR, radar and cameras on the trucks, it is still far from perfect. I would argue that an aircraft is in an even less controlled environment (you can stop the trucks when it all goes wrong or comms fails!), which is why it's such a hard problem.

Trains, relative to trucks and planes, are literally on rails. This removes one of the greatest challenges (navigation).
That doesn't include all the incidents where the pilot figured out what was wrong and what corrective action to take, and landed the airplane safely.

And besides, what do you do at 30,000 feet with a planeload of people and an emergency and nobody in charge?