skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I think you have to look at it from the other perspective:

Would switching to Libre Office actually save me money or would it cost me money?

People using MS Office are knowledge workers. They make money from their knowledge and their ability to manipulate knowledge tools such as MS Office.

Without volume licensing, MS Office is $99 a year for each worker (and many companies pay a bit less than that). Let's say the average worker at your firm makes $50,000. If you have a full benefits package, that adds tens of thousands to their cost. Add in computers, office space, etc. and that worker could cost you upwards of $100,000 a year.

Now look at that $99 a year cost for that one employee. Sure saving $99 would be nice, but what if switching made that employee 5 percent less productive? What if that employee has to interface with outside clients who use other programs and this causes issues with interoperability?

For me, as a manager, $99 a year is nothing if it makes my employees more productive. On the other hand, saving $99 for something that makes my employees less productive costs me a ton of money.

Nickel and diming knowledge workers is not a good way to make them productive or to keep them happy. This is why I don't care what programs employees like to use or even what OS they use. I want them as productive and happy as possible.

At a previous job I was forced to use Windows, even though I've been an OS X users since 10.1. The reasoning was that a Windows machine was cheaper to purchase and maintain for the IT department. Let's say the difference was something like $250-500 over the course of that machine's life (which could be four years or so). Is the IT staff saving a few hundred bucks really worth a significant drop in productivity for an employee?

Because my old job put computer and software purchases under IT, instead of my department, the IT department got to make their budget smaller by making my department less productive. Had the budget rested with my manager, of course I would have gotten the machine I wanted because a few hundred dollars for a big productivity boost is a no brainer for him.

I know how to use Windows well and can get work done on it, but I am more productive with the OS of my choice (and the applications that go along with it). With knowledge work, five percent productivity gain here, five percent productivity gain there and you're talking about a lot of money.
I've read this article before, and I have no idea why anyone would think that page alignment is a good idea, unless you're doing kernel-level stuff that absolutely requires it.

Optimization for performance has always been about cache lines (64 bytes), not pages (4 KiB). Of course you're going to get terrible results when you're wasting huge amounts of memory.
The web is global, deal with it.
I'm not sure why this comment was downvoted.
yeah but apple isn't a charity or government. they aren't in the industry of solving income inequality. imagine if you went to a restaurant and they checked your income and set the price of your meal based on that. it doesn't make any sense.
A male developer is going to be flagged as an "imposter" if he shows up to cut code in a suit. That sucks. Unfortunately, it probably also applies to dresses.
The problem there is the perceived unfairness that occurs when someone else in the company, sharing your approximate job, puts you out of work via automation.

How do you compensate those who lose their jobs as a result? What if they were also trying, but just happened to not be first to succeed?

It's a really cool idea though. (As a manufacturing engineer in a fairly old-fashioned company, I am currently trying to automate as much as possible; no idea yet about individual bonuses since I'm <1 year on the job)
Too much credit given to "robots". I see this coming from Hollywood, not Hacker News.
I remember the days when app revenue splits were 30/70 (driven by mobile carriers) so I find it hard to complain about Apple's revenue split policy. While onerous, it at least makes it possible to be profitable.
Because it's a web-based book? I've browsed about and haven't seen a clear explanation. (It took a while to figure out what the hell is going on at that site.)

Apparently he considers underlining a sin against typography [http://practicaltypography.com/underlining.html] as one of the "bad typewriter habits" [http://practicaltypography.com/typewriter-habits.html]. That might be why.

Which is funny, because one of his other rules is against abusing ALL CAPS [http://practicaltypography.com/all-caps.html]--which he does for internal links.

The site is also full of other absurd usability choices, like using the blank edges of the page for navigation [http://practicaltypography.com/how-to-use.html].

The author might know good typography for books, but has gone way overboard applying it to his website.
This is rationalistic.

I guess if my house is burglered because I left the door unlocked, you'd say I'm blameless as long as my "threat model" assumed that any burglers always come in through the window.
Making streamgraphs in R
An important distinction. A lot of implementation bugs I saw when researching GA/GP were related to this slight misunderstanding.
Not to get all hippie on you, but have you considered mindful meditation as an approach to quiet down your mind and improve focus?

You may find that the realisation that you are becoming more focused when you need it will help your relieve the stress that's causing your burnout.
I've been using "dselect" for 15+ years on Debian now :-)

But it is not simplistic.
What I carry with me every day: Alex Payne
See, that's the shocking thing: the other vendors are losing money.

Apple makes $93, Samsung makes $9, MSFT/LG/HTC/Nokia have losses of $2.
This happens in hierarchies regardless of genders. Anyone bullied in school or a workplace can tell you this.
You would need to measure if it in fact happens more often if it's a woman being a victim which is very difficult as most of those situations are not reported by neither gender.
The short of it is: Apple wants their record breaking profits and they get those profits by telling you little guys "to hell with you". People keep buying Apple, people keep developing for Apple. They're massively profitable. Tell me what they're doing wrong and why they should cut you a break?
News stories about people who didn't win Powerball
It's not easy for anyone though... Firstly, there are some people that are just assholes. Second, men in general (not all men/women), tend to be more aggressive than women. This can be intimidating or plain off-putting at times. Excessive arrogance has always bugged me a lot. The third is that some people are socially awkward in general, which can lean towards other issues.

Lastly, an all-male or all-female group will be much more crude or open about thoughts, jokes or concepts than in evenly mixed company. Groups that are very one-sided tend towards this as well. When I was younger, I worked in a few offices where I was the only man that worked there... What I overheard in those years of my life is far worse than what I've heard from any all-male or mostly-male offices I've ever worked in.

With time, as the numbers tend to even out, the feel of a space that is more equally mixed (genuine assholes aside) will be more even... Personally, I prefer to work with all men day to day. I do have to interact with women in another office, and have worked with them fine. I am just less distracted without women around, and that is on me.
Is Robert Scoble a fool? You need a Facebook account to access his content.
Two questions:

- Have you tried to influence both the Docker and APPC formats first?

- Is it a personal project or something officially from Google (because of the copyright notice)?
You know, I'm a big space exploration geek, but, over the years, I've come to see a lot of it as money not well spent. Again, I'm a space geek, amateur astronomer, follower of Nasa's and ESA's missions, but, in the end, some of the stuff will just cost too much for not much reward. Sometimes I'm still on the fence though.
To be clear, I wasn't focusing on any part in particular, I was giving better examples based on the examples you gave.

I also believe that saying you'd like to get drinks frequently with someone doesn't mean you'd like a sexual relationship with them (you might want introductions, information, friendship, or might have expressed as much to be polite). Even if you give them a hug. Even if you'd like to give them money as an investor.

I also think the question of power dynamic isn't settled, as the standard fundraising tactic is to imply there are a lot of investors interested in investing. (That it's a seller's market). OPs final reply to the investor is in line with him having been mislead about how much the $50,000 meant to OP / what the power dynamic was.

But yeah, I agree this is as good a time to part ways as any. Let's close by wishing no one ever incorrectly judges either of us. Cheers!
Proposal made without any thought as to how scummy app developers are going to game the system.

First thing that happens is opening a new development account per app in an attempt to squeak under the $100k as much as possible.
Btw, there is an new PR by Josh Rosen to fix SPARK-4454 here: https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/4660
I did once read a comment somewhere that said it's a British quirk to insult those you like while being friendly to those you dislike.

I could see how this might seem absurd to an outsider looking in. But, being English, it's definitely an observable idiosyncrasy for myself and my circle of friends.
I kind of have the opposite opinion. It should start at 30% and go down with success.

Apple is providing a service (yea there's no alternatives on iOS but still)... for 30% they take care off all your payments from all countries, they take care of refunds, dealing with credit card companies, and for the most part dealing with customers in general.

They also provide the market, the installation system, the update/upgrade system. Having tried to write some of those myself and the servers to maintain them I can tell you I don't personally want to run them.

Compare to Steam. Steam is also 30% on a platform you can do it all yourself if you want. Sure they provide the most exposure but similarly they also provide most of the other services that make it worthwhile.

Assuming you could do that do you really want to do all that yourself? Think about it. If you did it yourself you'd need to run a server to put your software on. Keep it secure, updating it constantly with security patches. Make a relationship with a payment processor. Handle refunds yourself. Figure out an upgrade system. Figure out how to deal with failed installations. I'm sure others could name many more things you'd have to do.

30% doesn't seem unreasonable to me given it would take more more than 30% of my time (and therefore money) to do this myself. At least that's my perspective.
Daily Show/Colbert are so incredibly dumbed down and mainstream though. And South Park has the annoying tendency to reiterate its point throughout the episode.
> Wow, way to go! I read HN so I must be a PG cheerleader and ergo I'm definitely sexist!

For someone who is all about psychological errors, you seem to have constructed quite a narrative. I'm not talking about cheerleading -- just the level of analysis. I'm not trying to make you into some horrible monster or anything -- that is your projection onto my criticism.

Speaking of psychological blinders: I stand by my assertion that, as long as anyone doesn't mess with your ego, you will not apply this level of analysis to what they write. It's human nature. At the risk of repeating myself, I just don't think you're reading PG's articles and thinking that what he says happened to him, didn't happen.

> Should anyone be able to wear anything to any job without any consequence?

Oh come on. Really? RTFA. You're veering away from the misattribution you original claimed as a possibility here.

I just wrote a whole comment about context, and you ignored it because it bruised your ego. Being obstinate about "drawing a line" is not a triumph of reason -- it's ignoring the world. Reductio ad absurdum relies on symmetry, of which you have none here.

She's obviously not wearing hot pants, a bikini top to work, and even if that were the case, she would be notified in an official capacity in short order (e.g. "told to go home") -- not "complimented" repeatedly in a creepy way.

There is no "murky line" because we are talking about a repeated pattern she illustrates in her article which shows it highly likely not to be misinterpretation. If she misinterpreted one of those examples (e.g. the "Facebook" example is the one I'd choose, actually), ok. But how likely is it she misinterpreted all of them, and the misinterpreted the social environment that made her pull together the examples in the first place?

> Please realize that there's a difference between saying "it might not be sexism" and "it's definitely not sexism" and that I'm trying to very cautiously propose the former, not the latter.

If I have a bug, it might be cosmic rays, a compiler bug -- or it could be my shitty code. All of these are possible. It isn't about what's possible, if you want to be analytical about it.. it's the likelihood.

So, when you say "it might be a compiler bug" when code breaks, you should know how ridiculous that sounds, even though you are technically correct[1]. There is a reason people say those kinds of things (without much more evidence) and it has a lot to do with how attached they are to their code.

[1] The Best Kind of Correct.
In most cases, I disagree with the point the author is trying to make. The author is arguing against the heavy restrictions Medium places on typesetting and layout. As a reader and author, I don't want the author to worry about these types of details. I want them to worry about ideas and storytelling.

The only exception I can think of to this rule is for highly visual medium like graphic novels. In this case, typesetting and layout are inseparable from the medium. That being said, I don't think Medium is designed for that type of use case

There may be other cases where creative choices in typesetting and layout may enhance the writing, but this usually isn't the case. Normally, when an author tries to "spice up" their writing this way it ends up looking like a crappy MySpace or GeoCities page.

As an aside, George RR Martin apparently uses WordStar 4.0 to write his books. I don't know if this proves or disproves the argument. Maybe if he had more control over the typesetting and layout, he would be done with Winds of Winter by now.
I'm rather disappointed that full, non-experimental xdebug support isn't on this list. I can't think of a more pertinent feature. I like HHVM's development as well as Hack, but without proper remote debugging, it remains rather inaccessible. I would personally love to contribute to getting some of the major frameworks that are not quite 100% compatible up to par but have been deterred in being able to fix bugs in a timely matter because of the lack of debugger support.
Yes, but automation is getting better. "Historically always been the case" is a deceptive panacea. It isn't inconceivable to imagine that it might start eating into knowledge-based work even more, continually shrinking the percentage of the population that is employable regardless of talent or education. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing (10 hour work weeks anyone?), unfortunately, the current world economy isn't set up to handle this transition well.
That's exactly what I feel too. Having this knowledge allows me for slightly more than just telling people that the end is nigh. I don't see the way to either leverage that knowledge to safeguard myself and my friends/family, or (preferably) do something to safegurad the society at large. It's easy for me to notice now when people around me, or even I myself do the Moloch's bidding, but I can't see a way to contribute to fight against it.
I spoke with an optimization expert from Argonne National Lab and he gave me the same impression, that gradient descent techniques far outperform evolutionary ones. They're more specialized, make it easier to incorporate domain knowledge, and using stochasticity compensates for local optima.
Not if you're basing taxes/charges on it. An order of magnitude?
If the world is material (natural) only, then the maxim of Hitchens and Sagan applies: "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence". You assert humans have value. There is no empirical evidence of this claim. This leaves you with Moral Nonrealism.

Only if the world is posited to be something beyond material (supernatural), can we suggest values are Real and hold to Moral Realism. Anytime we suggest that humans have value or that moral statements correspond to real truths, we have abandoned empiricism and have entered the realm of faith.
Agreed, I'm using total hardware profits by ecosystem as a proxy for willingness of consumers in those ecosystems to spend money. Actual revenue from each store isn't easy to come by from what I've seen (esp. since the various Android stores are fragmented).

But I think we already know the conclusion: the iOS store has more money spent in it than the Android one.
It's hard to change the status quo, specially when there are paychecks directly involved.

At a company I worked for, after they realized that things couldn't go on anymore without massive automation, their first approach was to introduce it into the infrastructure lifecycle and require all new infrastructure to be heavily automated. That allowed the legacy stuff to die slowly without much disturbance.

Another different idea entirely would be spin off a subsidiary with those ideals and slowly migrate the work there. Perhaps too much work, but if the situation is desperate enough..
That is absurd. Gradient descent assumes you can compute the gradient of your objective function. For a great many functions you cannot define the gradient: indeed you can't even define the objective function well.

Genetic algorithms belong to a family of metaheuristics, algorithms designed to tackle such ill-defined functions where gradient descent is simply impossible to use.

My concern with this webpage is that it is a far too simplistic treatment of genetic algorithms, to the point of being misleading, and has quite a number of outright errors. I wouldn't use it.
There's different kinds of load balancers, and as such different responses to different criteria. If you don't want to serve 500 error pages to all your users, one of your load balancers (or "proxy layers", for more or less intelligent forms of load balancers) should be doing something when you're getting 500s, like moving traffic around, or serving different content. It's far too common for 500s to be due to a machine-specific or network-specific problem to just assume they'll resolve themselves or are unresolvable.
Can someone explain to me the zero-knowledge proof example problem discussed on page 37, given two graphs G and H, prove that they are NOT isomorphic?

"But as noticed by Goldreich, Micali, and Wigderson [65], there is something Merlin can do instead: he can let Arthur challenge him. Merlin can say:"

Arthur, send me a new graph K, which you obtained either by randomly permuting the vertices of G, or randomly permuting the vertices of H. Then I guarantee that I will tell you, without fail, whether K ∼= G or K ∼= H.

I don't understand what it means for a graph to be isomorphic to another graph, and I do not understand how Merlin's challenging answer can provide a (zero-knowledge) proof to the given problem either.
> Not really first

But they weren't made by the same company as the OS was.

And I do agree that moving away from MS Office would be very foolish, if money saving is the reason behind it.
"But I think in the end, American audiences want to see the good in people, especially the main characters."

I used to work in TV series development. One of the ongoing legends in the TV development business is how every American TV exec loves Fawlty Towers, and even though everyone's tried to adapt it for American TV, none of their attempts has been successful. The reason being that American audiences need the protagonist to be "likable," and making the John Cleese character "likable" totally saps the comedic power of the show.

I suspect there's more to it than that. Fawlty Towers plays to some decidedly more British cultural issues surrounding class and social climbing. Also, it's really freaking hard to find someone who can fill Cleese's shoes. Nevertheless, the likability issue is a big one.
Yeah it would need a lot of thought around the incentive structures.

The original thought was that if you fully automate your own job you get your salary as a bonus. But if you fully automate someone else's job, you both split their salary 50/50 as a bonus.

Now both of you are free to work on automating other jobs in the org. So you'd end up with various teams working together to automate jobs in the org.

As a byproduct, it would also free up a lot of human capital in an organisation to focus on pure R&D and intrapreneurship.
Criticl: A New Platform to Nurture and Empower Citizen Journalism
This is essentially a stand-in for workers "owning the means of production". Congrats, you are now a marxist (dirty commie according to some).
I disagree with the "context" you're trying to conjure up here. Petersellers' post is quite explicit, and directly equates paying for the construction/use of weapons to paying laborers to dig/re-fill holes in the ground.

At no point did he say it was disproportionate to the nation's wealth (or dirt-supply.)

Rather, his post argues it shouldn't happen at all.
HAProxy absolutely can support an HTTP response code health check, but in my experience out of the box it just makes sure the port (say 80) is open. I learned this once the hard way and will never make that mistake again... ;)
When you are the king you get to decide. It is still a way better split then say ads on YouTube videos. I just don't see them changing this.