skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Yup.

This is like some of the torrent/pirate sites, where the ordinary safe-harbor type of defense would be "Who? Us? We had no idea people were doing that sort of thing!" and gets shot down by "Yeah, you were designing and advertising it specifically to enable that sort of thing, attract people who would do that sort of thing, and talked at length about how your site was entirely for doing that sort of thing."
Why? Owning and home and living in it present different risks than owning a home and renting it out. Likewise, driving a car for personal use is different than driving it for hire.

Home owners and car owners need to be upfront and honest with their insurance companies.
Yeah, and if they worked for Lehman they're gonna love the unhedged call opinion. It's exciting.
I totally understand this pain point before I began reading on options I was clueless, mystified but ultimately realized options are akin to trading stocks (buying low selling high) but with the added time restriction and ability to make money in any market.

Options are tricky to understand but essentially, think of it as just a piece of paper or a contract between you and the person buying it from you. It's a buy/sell market that exists on these "papers". Options trading essentially revolve around buying these papers which usually have an expiry date of between weeks to years and at what price you can buy the underlying good before the expiry date. The profit is made from the valuation of this paper going up and down based on the underlying value of what this paper represents. The paper can be contract about beef, corn, oil and share price of Apple. Just like the stock market, you want to pay cheap price for a paper and sell it when it goes high, but the beauty of options is since you don't actually trade the actual good itself, you can create a dizzying array of strategies and combinations to make money in any type of situation, but with the condition that you have to be right about what market we are in (trending up, down, sidways, volatility etc).

Writing an option is like selling a piece of paper that says the person buying your paper will have the ability to buy the stock at the price written on the paper. If the price is low and the stock price goes up, well you now have to buy X number of shares that was written on the paper at the high price to give to this guy, causing great deal of loss to you (since you sold the paper for some cash earlier).

If the stock price falls, then you could buy the shares at the low low price using the money you made from selling the paper and give it to the other guy, who most likely won't ask you to do this and just think about the time he paid you to write him a piece of paper that is now "expired" or worthless.
Berkshire Hathaway owned a significant stake of Salomon. A rogue trader at Salomon broke Treasury rules and the CEO didn't discipline him. The U.S. Government threatened to bar Salomon from buying U.S. Government bonds which would have destroyed the bank and maybe Berkshire Hathaway. Buffet stepped in and saved the day.
Well at least you're in good company with that attitude, on this site.
“It’s tough, physical work, all day, every day,” one of the archeologists in Johnson’s book says.

Turning her copy over, King pointed to the trowel on the back. “This is a riveted trowel, which we would never use. It should be a welded trowel, because the riveted trowel would break, and break quickly.”

Some years ago, I had several archaeologists in my GIS classes. One of them told me he had a bum shoulder from digging all the time. He was in his twenties.
As an additional exploration of these excellent ideas, I recommend the textbook How to Design Programs (HtDP):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Design_Programs

It's available online: http://htdp.org/
"PowerMock is basically only for tests that interact with badly designed code that you can't change"

Presumably where the definition of badly designed includes "uses static methods"? That's something that I hold true, and teach to other people as true, but I have started wondering about it. Whenever I ask why it's bad I get told "it makes testing hard". Well, Powermock can make testing it possible - "but powermock is only for badly designed code". What's badly designed code? And so it goes round.

Is it really that conceptually bad? Or is it just that our testing tools are insufficient, or that the language itself did not make provisions for testing all of its features? I've seen a lot of code recently that uses dependency injection purely for testing, and uses builders instead of constructors all over the place, and it feels like a lot of effort and complexity to avoid using PowerMock.
Where are the criminal convictions for HSBC and Wachovia's money laundering for the Mexican drug cartels? They laundered over $300 Billion USD over the years, and no one went to jail?
You also take 100% of the risk.
Not pretty, good catch
I find it hard to sympathize with these articles.

She was aware that the academic job market is bleak, especially in English, yet chose to pursue it nonetheless. Thus, her plight is squarely on her shoulders. It also doesn't mean her students will fair worse: some of them might be making rational choices to get degrees in useful, lucrative fields. Especially at a third-rate university, nobody really has the luxury to major in English.

Nothing in our economic system entitles you to making a living at something just because you like it and practice it. I could train for decades to be the world's foremost expert on modern cave painting, but that doesn't entitle me to a cent of wages unless the market deems that skill is useful.
Code (live code) + LaTeX can be done with org-babel (kind of,) and I use mmm-mode (sorry, not on my computer now and don't remember the precise name, but it's on Melpa) and for multiple major modes in different blocks, works nicely (but don't know a way to keep the defined modes per section across sessions/file closes)
I found this, the later model of the CMOS. Sparkfun discontinued it, but it appears to be sold here:

http://www.eio.com/p-2595-toshiba-tcm8240md-cmos-camera-1300...
Contrary to latter is an example of Vkontakte russian social network refusing to block ukranian EuroMaidan groups. Which subsequently led to it's founder Pavel Durov resignation.
It's also entirely possible that the people who built the system did not do so thinking or believing that it would end up being used in the way it has been, and that their good faith was taken advantage of by incapable or self-serving managers unworthy of the trust that their positions require.

The human links tend to be the weakest ones.
The ball British WWI soldiers dribbled towards their deaths, going over the top
Here's what may happen if you take a drug which really does try to 'boost your immune system': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TGN1412 - almost immediate systemic organ failure, angioedema leading to loss of fingers and toes, and long term health problems.
The reason for that was that it was the industry that framed the shortage in that way, to begin with.
I agree with you that "unhedged call option" is not a phrase most people will get, on the other hand software engineering needs a better vocabulary around tech debt. There is a very specific type of tech debt that I think this describes

So if you think we need better differentiation of technical debt (which I do) then finance is a good source of those differentiations[1]

Personally I've heard tech debt used to describe everything from tightly coupled UI/DB code, to design decisions the person disagreed with, to code without tests. Even though those are obviously 3 different problems. So I'm for increasing the size of our vocabulary

[1] I actually wrote a whole article using finance terms to think about tech debt. https://medium.com/@the_ajohnston/questions-about-the-debt-i...
Agreed, if you want to scan the entire internet, you better be someone like fyodor, and even then the authorities will probably come a knocking. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hk-21p2m8YY
To be fair, this was a little college town and I don't imagine it's easy to find any sort of physics-related job that has much schedule flexibility.
Prior to that a previous protege also died young [1]. Miyazaki himself also carried the productions he worked on to a frightening degree. The man was/is a complete workaholic and expecting anyone to fill that role is essentially unreasonable.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoshifumi_Kond%C5%8D
It doesn't look like she is looking for sympathy, and it seems to be her opinion that her career was her own choice.
"Whorfer" = adherent of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which (very roughly) says that language structure and vocabulary influences or determines what thoughts can be thought. e.g. if your language does not have a word for "yellow", do you classify colors the same way as someone who speaks a language that does?
Two thoughts about these Hep C drugs. First, I agree we should celebrate the advent of the potential cure for a devastating viral disease.

Second, while the costs are considerable, expense is not out of line with many other treatments that are not making the headlines. Check into the costs of renal transplantation. And my wife recently had a cataract replaced, a commonplace procedure, the final bill was >$5000.

The issue is the real total costs of treating vs. not treating the disease. It's necessary to take into account the costs of doctor visits, medications, disability, loss of productivity, increased likelihood of illness among family members due to stress, among many other factors.

If a patient can be restored to adequate functionality, and after the Hep C treatment require no more than routine health care, the $84K might in fact be a bargain.

Until we get it clear that we must consider the true total costs of fully treating vs. not treating an illness, we will never be able to make rational decisions about structuring a health care system.

Unless proven otherwise, I'm convinced the system with the lowest total cost is providing care that patients actually need. We only make matters worse by the focus on "cutting health care costs" vs. reducing the total economic burden of illness.
That doesn't seem odd to me. If there's a young person working a retail or service job, I usually assume they're doing it for extra cash while they finish their degree. 9 out of 10 times it's true and completely predictable, as these sorts of jobs provide far more of the necessary flexibility than traditional "professional" jobs.

On the other hand, if they're 30+ my preconception is completely different.
Of course Facebook has a choice. It may cost them some money, but refusing to collaborate with totalitarian governments is an option. Look at Google versus China. Google had the courage to resist Chinese censorship and I really respect them for that.
I've created a version with some explanations about performance issues...

https://gist.github.com/lispm/e9372894519f8e6feae1
It's actually a really good example of the article - there's nothing wrong with debt denominated in a foreign currency, you can hedge against the currency risk.

The whole thing is about risk, if you hedge away all your risk financially there is generally no profit to be made (you're left with arbitrage), if you hedge away all your technical debt then you've essentially (re)implemented it properly.
>>> Does this leak taint the jury?

Nope.

The attorneys will ask potential jury members during the selection process if they have been following the case in the papers. If the have, it may be grounds for challenging a person to serve on the jury for this specific case if they have a pre-determined view about Ulbricht's guilt or innocence.

The process is total chess match since both sides want to get people who are sympathetic to their client or their cause. You should watch the movie "Runaway Jury". In the meantime, here's a quick overview of the jury selection process works:

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/how-are-poten...
Bingo. My parents are from the Silent Generation, early enough to experience the Great Depression and WWII from the home front. And they're rather miserly with money.

This could be related to the observation that people who enter the workforce during a recession end up earning quite a bit less than those who don't.
> 10 years from now we'll be living in a very different world.

Only if you are rich enough to afford it. That is where the outrage comes from - in most of the world healthcare and a right to life is considered a human right. In the US, current IP rights and drug policy will enable the exploitation of anyone who gets any major disease for all their are worth and then you can hang them out to die without treatment.

It isn't the fault of the drug manufacturers though, they are profit seeking and work in their investors interests, who gave millions over years or decades and expect returns. You can and should blame the legal framework that prevents free market drug manufacturing through monopoly patents that lets people die because they cannot afford new drugs to cure their ailments.
I went back and looked and you're right, that paraphrasing doesn't appear in the NY times article that they're using as a source.

Also, the gawker article used as the source for the Buzz feed comments doesn't read as being about age at all.

Given the two strikes at the first two things I've looked at it just calls into credibility the whole article - which is a shame, as there probably a good conversation about age to be had.
Discussion of the source article: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8724582
Why Is Kim Jong-un So Afraid of Seth Rogen?
Twitter’s reaction to Charlie Shrem’s sentence
The problem is one of miscommunication between tech and media/government.

There is definitely a shortage of developers, a shortage which tech companies have regularly been complaining about.

Unfortunately, politicians and journalists just hear "we need more nerds" so assume there is a STEM shortage (in their non-technical minds, nerds are all equivalent). Thus the broad and pointless push for STEM graduates when what's really needed is a specific subsection of Technology.
Download iOS 8.1.2 Doulci Bypass activation tool Updated version now
Flickr removes CC-licensed photos from Wall Art program
I assume this is a snark comment, but it is a fascinating discussion.

Typically it's claimed big pharma & co. intentionally withhold, avoid creating, or would never pursue cures because it's not good for business. Then when they finally produce a cure, people get upset about the price. Short of being a non-profit or charity, they're damned if they do / don't.

I think if Gilead can input $1 billion for development, and yield $100 billion on a cure (minus some comparatively modest marketing expenses), that's an excellent business model. ($80k * 1.x million hep c patients in the US that get their cure; assuming only a portion of the 3.x million in the US end up taking Gilead's drugs)
US dollars are used for illicit purposes, in much greater volume than Bitcoin in its entire history. I don't see how this change anything with bitcoin.
Yes, there is such a thing as 'good code' that people should aspire to, or at least good practices when it comes to writing code. There are good teams that write code that has no or very little debt. It's also not just bad code that leads to technical debt, but bad decisions when it comes to code-related things like architecture, tech stack, which version of libraries / languages to use, etc.
There is a shortage... Of tech workers willing to indenture themselves, or to work for a fraction of what they're worth. But the real elephant in the corner of the room is ageism.
Myself and my children aged 4 and 6 have seen most of the Ghibli movies... they are amazing. Obviously, Totoro is well liked... but Ponyo and Kiki are the favorites here (we have re-watched them many, many times) and that was a surprise for me.
Mark Tilden – Applied Examples of Analog Biomorphic Design
Apple's inconsistency about what is and is not allowed in the App Store is one of the most frustrating things about developing for their platform. They should be clear and consistent. It's fine to expand the capabilities of the platform (it seems silly that iOS apps can't use USB), but Apple needs to announce when things that were disallowed are now OK.
> The single cited study was done by FireEye, which sells security products and services. They have an incentive to exaggerate the problem, since their business depends on the existence of threats.

The widespread vulnerability of corporate networks is not something that FireEye discovered on its own, as the article notes. Besides, security threats don't seem to need too much exaggeration nowadays from a public awareness standpoint.

>The lack of reporting doesn't imply a lack of incidents. Since reporting breaches would result in negative publicity for both the cloud providers and their customers, we'd expect them to keep quiet.

Publicly traded companies legally can't hide a major breach from the SEC even if it hurts the bottom line. As a matter of fact, that's one of the main reasons why they are obliged to disclose such incidents in the first place. Target and Home Depot are some of the latest examples.
A lot of the guys I know run TAILS (https://tails.boum.org/) on a USB stick. They say if the cops bust them, all they have to do is rip out the stick and they're safe since TAILS encrypts all your files.

How accurate their statement is, I don't know.
I don't think there is an ethical financial model to fund drug research. It kind of has to be philanthropy to not deny the sick live saving treatment, especially since those most likely to be chronically ill are also more likely to be poor.

The only way I could see it working would be to have states guarantee a return to investors at some fixed rate of the cost to discover a new drug, and then buy the rights from them and release them public domain so anyone can manufacture it. But any kind of system like that, involving money taken through violent taxation and put through a bureaucratic blender of national politics, is bound for exploitation.

I doubt that in an IP free world all drug research would stop. Those with a vested interest and the charitable could and would fund their own research. One thing to consider is that modern drug research is not directed towards that which is hard or needed, but that which is profitable and wanted. That is why we see a half dozen erection drugs each year yet there has to be viral marketing campaigns for ALS research.
Well, the "best editor debates" do keep people from being insular. :-)

Are the vi keybindings really better for your RSI? I've heard different stories. For example,

http://changelog.complete.org/archives/661-so-long-vim-im-re...

There's a new ergoemacs mode that I haven't tried yet: http://ergoemacs.org

Personally, I spend more time using IntelliJ, Xcode, and Sublime these days, but recently I started using Emacs again for a bunch of .org stuff.

By the way, there's an Emacs StackExchange which will hopefully make emacs more accessible.

http://emacs.stackexchange.com/questions/2671/how-can-i-get-...
This is why the myth being spread that "anyone can code" is so long term dangerous. Because it doesn't matter that it isn't true (beyond trivial stuff like websites): it will still drive down what people in general think programmers are worth.
So it'd be extending the analogy to bet on untested new technologies.
source? Casablanca was produced in 1942 and released in 1943
Bot google and facebook have very strong domestic competitors in Russia. So their withdrawal from the country would achieve exactly nothing.
The original NYT quote is pretty easy to find. May 2013, Paul Graham: "The cutoff in investors’ heads is 32." [1]

Still in denial mode?

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/05/magazine/y-combinator-sili...
These guys operate on the premise that ideas are cheap and exeuction is all that counts. The excell at execution like hardly anybody else.
Not all code debt contains massive downsides. The key to using technical debt wisely is understanding the difference, and architecting a system that is loosely coupled to allow strategic debt to be taken on in places where it makes sense.
It isn't that complex. The idea behind the metaphor isn't to communicate what an uncovered call is, it's to illuminate what technical debt really means. It's a philosophical analysis describing that "debt" isn't an accurate metaphor for what techical debt really is. The fact that this way of thinking about techical debt "isn't widely known" is exactly the point. Most folks think about techical debt in terms of a thing that must eventually be repaid regardless of the future of the software while presenting it as an uncovered call is much more accurate as to what is actually happening: you're trading a now benefit for the future potential that it will cost you nothing or it could be so expensive that it might cost you everything. The decision to incur technical debt is actually an investment that the benefit now is more valuable than the future cost. Debt is completely different; debt implies that it must, eventually, one day be repaid with interest; however not all technical debt must actually be repaid-- for example if you build feature x in a sloppy but expeditious way, you've incurr d techical debt, however if feature x is eventually depreciated the you "won" because your overall cost of the feature is less than it would have been had you not incurred the techical debt. But, if feature x becomes the center of your product's world and everything else is blocked by the debt, then you lose greatly in comparison to the cost it would have taken to build it debt-free in the first place, thus the risk is theoretically unlimited and not just limited to the amount of technical debt incurred -- because other things are now being delayed because of that debt. So the goal, in my opinion is to manage risk, incur technical debt minimally and only when there's a high probability of that debt not ever having to be repaid. If you know, with a high degree of certainty that the debt will need to be repaid, it's cheaper not to incur it in the first place.

I think the uncovered call metaphor is a brilliant way of framing this issue. It doesn't matter if we know finance or not, it's the way of looking at the problem that provides us with a good framework with which to make development decisions. If we are aware of the unlimited downside and manage that risk, we can actually be more aware of when it makes sense to incur technical debt and when it doesn't. In my opinion, it, just like options trading, is all about risk management and certainly not about traditional debt management.
Avoiding questions because of theoretical potential outcomes of people knowing the answer is neither good nor useful. Knowledge is not implicitly dangerous or immoral.

Also, in this particular case, it seems that the people interested in that sort of thing could figure it out anyway. Obscurity isn't security.
There's no such thing as a right to own the productivity of other human beings.

Even if the FDA provided a more efficient process, it would still cost hundreds of millions and take a decade to develop drugs like these. In what scenario should all of these scientists be working for free? And the equipment makers, and their employees; and on down the chain it goes.

The only sane approach in the socialized medicine world, would be for the government to offer a one-time buyout for such breakthrough drugs.

If your theory worked so well, socialized medicine countries would produce the most drug innovation and breakthroughs, their science and production would dwarf the US to such an immense degree it would put every pharma and biotech company in the US out of business rapidly. And yet, nothing of the sort has happened. Quite the opposite, the US has been the center of the pharma & biotech world for decades.

The rich always subsidize breakthroughs, and their subsidization makes the next iterations affordable for the masses. The same pattern holds true in nearly everything.