skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
My wife is constantly getting comments at the hospital where she works about her looks. Mostly, these are from men, and mostly they are in the form of "Well, aren't you a pretty young thing." Now, most of them (though by no means all) are, it seems, trying to be nice. She works in cardiology, so she sees an older population so this behavior is not exactly surprising.

Now, yes it may be a compliment, but it is an unwelcome one because it does two things. First, it puts her on the spot. How do you respond to that in an appropriate and professional manner? What if they are straight up inappropriate? [1]. What if they are addressing another person in the room and not you directly? ("Wow doc, you have such pretty ladies taking care of me here!"). This is an extremely uncomfortable position to be in, and one that most men never experience.

Second, this diminishes her professional qualities. With more or less clarity, lots of these men say things like "you are so pretty, do you even know any medicine?". Some basically, say that straight up.

And the biggest problem with all this? These are incidental occurrences. If your boss pinches your bottom every day, you go to HR, complain and your boss gets to take sexual harassment training or gets fired. When patients make you uncomfortable, it's always a question of whether it's worth it to try to correct their behavior at the risk of being unprofessional. Remember, the patient can easily complain that you were rude to them. Make a habit of it, and like it or not but your job will be affected. This is especially bad since most of the people that make these comments don't even realize that they are making her uncomfortable, so to call them out on it would be even more of a shock.

[1] One particularly bad incident was when she asked a patient about his sexual function and he responded with "Well if you were my girlfriend, I wouldn't have any issues, trust me."
Video by CGP Grey on a similar topic - Humans need not apply - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU
This to me is analogous to those gender norm conversations in which people suggest that the problem is that tech is too competitive and aggressive, and that to be amenable to gender equality tech needs to tone itself down and become more collegial and cooperative.

Which, when you think about it, is just a backhanded way of disqualifying women.
Basic income. People may scoff, but this is one of the extremely rare ideas that can draw significant support from both sides of the isle in the US.

There are pockets of strong opposition to the idea on both the right and the left, but I can only hope that the far left's opposition to basic income continues. That opposition in and off itself makes most politicians in this country take a serious look at the idea.
What JS developers call "pre-rendering" is what everyone else has been calling "not a static webpage" since forever. It takes willful blindness to ride around on a bike with square wheels, ignore the round-wheel bikes around you, then eventually switch to round-wheel yourself and act like you invented it and it's the next big thing.
I think everyone agrees that the private sector should do everything it can. It's a spectrum. Most problems the market can solve just fine. Some problems it cannot without the power of taxation (no free riding). The cut off line is hotly debated. Arguably the line shifts with technological advances.
A really good article about basic income was published in Vox last year (seems to have been updated recently).

http://www.vox.com/2014/9/8/6003359/basic-income-negative-in...
There's plenty of digital nomads building legimitate business or doing proper remote "work" (see my comment below). They tend not to be too outspoken, write blog posts, because they are busy, well, doing work. Most of these folks however don't travel too much anymore as they have found a home-base they feel productive in.
Google Cloud + BigML = Easier Machine Learning
I'll bet I could cheat it with WebDriver or something, but I'm not that industrious.
People do this because (unfortunately for some) it works.

I am going to advance something here, but before I do this and offend many, let me first state clearly that this type of behavior is absolutely impolite.

Now the problem is not the investor, it is society in general. No man is going around dropping their pants hoping to be liked simply because it has never worked. That is to say if a man or woman touches another in a certain way, it is very likely that it is something that has worked in the past, and that continues to work for many.

I am just stating a fact here, and again apologies for offending anyone: you can go out nowadays meet people and sleep with them within hours of your very first interaction. I am not talking about a bar, I am talking about anywhere.

It goes further, many people who are in committed relationships (and I am not judging anyone) are openly flirtatious with co-workers.

The list goes on and on. So people see this, and follow accordingly.

When people see these things and do not stop to think is this right or wrong, they just follow suit.

In short men and women act this way because many other men and women allow it, and it works, and unfortunately those who do not like it end up being the offended.

Specifically to women: the mistake many make (at work) is to think they can act a certain with one person, and not expect other men to follow with their attempts.

My little advice is to behave in a way that tells everybody that this kind of behavior is not acceptable from the get go. Have your SAME limits set for everyone.

It is very sad that you have to do this, and unacceptable, but until both men and women understand what lines should not be crossed, you have to look out for yourself.
I have a number of friends who work at Google. Meanwhile, I've worked at a variety of small companies, from privately held to "startups".

My advice is, hands down, to get on with the Googles of the world. They have actual career trajectories, and bosses who actually care about moving them along it.

Financially speaking, a startup is almost always the worst choice, unless you're a founder (and even then, the reward is most likely going to be satisfaction of seeing something through, rather than financial).

I hear stories of bureaucracy at large companies, but I've been amazed at the amount of it at so-called startups. Unless you're a founder or a principal engineer role, you're probably going to see the same endless meetings and religious arguments over minutia.
A better answer is removing expensive barriers of entry to allow small businesses to compete with larger companies, removing artificial boundaries to allow labor to go where it is most needed just as capital is allowed the same today, and _reducing taxes_ allowing the middle class to thrive once more instead of giving special privileges to the wealthy and buying off the poor with free debt.
Would you rather have a culture of 100% agreement? There are many different reasons why someone would write something like that in bad faith (mental illness, attention-seeking, etc.), it might be worth exploring such aspects (some stories fall apart under scrutiny, e.g. the UVA rape case). Also, I see nothing wrong with saying "she should loudly say 'did you just touch my boob?'", I think it would be beneficial if jerks were called out on shitty behavior more often.
On the other hand, with diamonds, I'm guessing there are regulations ensuring synthetic diamonds are labelled differently from natural. With natural horns being illegal, who's going to know?

This might be harder for authorities to identify real horn products, but it'll also make it harder for consumers.

Hopefully the authorities don't decide to solve the former problem with some sort of certification that can also be used to solve the latter.
Halcyon and deploying to Heroku for Haskell is really great, I use it for http://howistart.org/ (https://github.com/howistart/howistart.org)
The problem is implementation, do you really trust the US government to give it even more power over its people by allowing to hand out 'basic incomes' to everyone? I'm sure it will only become yet another tool to oppress dissent.
Life jacket is good, but in higher seas one of the main problems (assuming the crew remaining on board is actually competent) is visibility - consider investing into something like a dan buoy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMGWk6s9G4k
Why wait for a tax? If we're in the top %x of income earners, why aren't we taking it upon ourselves to give away our wealth? Form a charitable organization that takes care of people, donate your money.

Edit: I'm with the others here replying with "reduced burdens on the middle class and small businesses" and "...teach a man to fish..." I keep seeing this basic income and wealth distribution topic on HN and I would genuinely like to understand why those preaching for these ideas never actually do anything about it. "Make the government bigger" isn't the answer as it'll then be used as a tool of oppression.

Further, assuming we implemented a basic income in the USA, how many generations until the motivators for innovation and advancing society are completely eliminated? I've everything I need at $BASIC_INCOME, and as soon as I start producing more income, the government is stripping it from me, so what's my motivation to ever do anything besides subsist on that minimum? And once everyone is just taking the minimum and not doing work, who's gonna farm the food? Drive the trucks? Operate a grocery? Build the houses?
Which part of the right supports basic income?
So, let's see... autoplay, splash screen, a video with no navigation controls. That site's UX sucks in a big way, so why is it #2 on HN?
I think this UX Engineer role from Google is actually pretty solid.

https://www.google.com/about/careers/search#!t=jo&jid=45100&
Anyone interested in this topic should pick up a copy of Carlota Perez's Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital. It speaks more specifically about the last 5 revolutions, beginning with the Industrial Revolution, and provides a framework for understanding the relationship between tech revolutions and finance. Just a fantastic read.

Don't just take my word for it though. Here is Fred Wilson saying the same: http://avc.com/2015/02/the-carlota-perez-framework/
I don't think your fears are well grounded, and I'm not aware of significant efforts by the US government to "oppress dissent" in other recent cases.
A similar event did happen in a semi-business setting last year. I met a woman at a bar, discussed work and personal travel, and decided to meet up another time. I thought it was a sale, she thought it was a date. She did touch me in a manner far better suited to a date, at which point I figured out that we talked past each other. Should I name and shame her?

If you've actually got some set of abstract principles you are willing to use across the board, I'd love to hear them. But I don't think that's where most of the commenters here are coming from.
Would you rather have a culture of 100% agreement?

About some things? Yes. A culture of 100% agreement about people of European descent not being superior to other races, for instance, is a good thing. There is such a thing as an unproductive disagreement, and even of toxic disagreements. An attempt to disagree about the role of Jewish people in international banking conspiracies, for instance, would be unwelcome.
Two questions:

1. How will this help with wealth that's already accumulated? I get how this will slow further accumulation.

2. How about capital flight? If the US enacts a policy like this, what stops the super rich from moving to other countries?
Not all, and I believe memcached was one of the first if not the first. IBM eXtreme Scale uses catalog servers, it's definitely not the default on redis (you need specific client libraries), Elastic Search keeps track of where the data is and each node act as a proxy server.

PS: Yes I know, eXtreme Scale and ES do HA, which is not easy to do with client side consistent hashing partitioning.
Actually, if you look at the project more closely, it does support github. In fact, there's even a derivative project that directly interacts with github. However, I think the point of this poster's comment was that this project's scope doens't include ey's needs, not that it doesn't interface with a particular service (I, of course, could be wrong in that interpretation).
Something to note.

This suffers from the same problem cancer screening does, namely an absurdly low probability of false positives still ends up with high error rates.

They really need to mention how many paintings were tested overall.
> It's hard to get worked up about the concerns raised in this article simply because I view where I'm driving essentially as public information (as almost all of my commute is on public property), and because the data collected is so clearly necessary for providing the features the app advertises.

That part makes sense - you're driving on public roads - but the article mentions a very long list of additional information that is collected on you. Most of which is not clearly necessary for providing the advertised features. That's the worrying part.
I've tried cold emailing but I only got one response so far, and it was a "no".

I'm 20 businesses in and no replies.
Federal Study Finds Smoking Marijuana Does Not Increase Risk for Car Crash [pdf]
My main problem is time commitment. I don't have the time manage anyone/their work or work on the app.

This would definitely be an option if my time wasn't so constrained.
"But I worry we learned the wrong lessons from recent examples" - what are the wrong lessons ?
Are there any statistics comparing job loss in the industrial and software revolutions up to this point. The industrial revolution likewise replaced manual labor with automation, and the software revolution Sam talks about seems like a more effective extension of that. What trends happened last time jobs were replaced by automation?
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Leaving sexism out of the picture entirely, do you think people consuming alcohol is conducive to making good business decisions? Because I certainly don't.
Reproducible and collaborative data science – Overleaf links with Plotly
> you don't have to research how to achieve the equivalent in another ecosystem

is somewhat contradicted by

> browserify the thing and you're done

Browserifying a library might seem conceptually simple, but if it was written with a particular usage in mind, it will really include writing a set of non-trivial shims to make it work with, say, Ajax instead of `fs`.

If, on the other hand, you actually understand the problem at hand and are willing to write code instead of plumbing libraries together, you can frequently express the solution to that problem in remarkably few concise lines of code in any language. This alleviates the need for others to learn both the problem domain and the quirks of the library chosen to address that problem.
Haskell Confirms Security Breach in Debian Builds
Similar boat. I've found work quality wise it also comes down largely to the people. A traditional new-product "startup" has a lot more potential for a monomaniac egotistical founder that interferes in everything you do, appreciates nothing, and makes things miserable, far more personally so than the "big corp beaurocracy" people complain about (and yet still pay less than them). Big corp you can usually at least transfer departments / managers if things get too out of sorts. For me the best fit has been the small consulting agency; diverse projects with lots of flexibility, and stable enough to recognize the value of good employees and usually give decent raises and benefits.
And yet WWIII hasn't started, and there have been no accidental nuclear detonations since we started building the weapons in the first place. Nuclear engineering, like any field of industrial or weapons technology, has inherent dangers. That's why both civilian and military engineering disciplines include safeguards.

On the civilian side, the profit-motivated nature of nuclear engineering has resulted in a variety of serious industrial accidents, which have produced a widespread but erroneous perception that the technology is just too dangerous to have, when in fact it's merely too dangerous to have in the hands of people who care only about making money off it.

On the military side, conversely, the safeguards around nuclear weapons have, thus far at least, been exactly as effective as we need them to be, and nuclear warheads are as safe as anything can be that's inherently dangerous. That's not to say they are perfectly safe, but neither is anything else; all life is risk, and I'd much rather take the risk of having them, than of not having them and being at the mercy of someone who does.

(And military power reactors tend to be a lot safer than civilian ones as well, thanks to an engineering safety culture which I gather is best described as fanatical. Me, I'm in favor of purchasing all civilian-owned nuclear power reactors and placing them in the hands of an eighth federal uniformed service, the US Nucleonics Service, staffed with Navy-trained engineers and operated as a cost center of government. But I appreciate that makes me sort of weird.)
“I think our system is being polluted by money”
> The new existential threats won’t require the resources of nations to produce.

The continued openness of the Internet relies on the Government, no? Is it wrong to think that AI relies on that as well?

> The fact that we don’t have serious efforts underway to combat threats from synthetic biology and AI development is astonishing.

Isn't this what government is for?
"How do I get my algorithm FAA certified for flight?"

This one is critical. Most drone operators using anything above a hobby grade UAV are using fairly sophisticated software to command GPS velocities. This is assuming even more complex GPS missions are not being carried out. How do we setup a certification regiment for that software and its extensions to sense and avoid?

Granted, I don't have the answers. The FAA will inevitably suggest the same certification regiment that large airplane autopilots go through, but that seems prohibitively cumbersome.
A web developer who can do client side (CSS, JS, HTML), server side, and knows the essentials of relational databases and SQL. Understands HTTP and the request/response cycle. Systems/DevOps and newer protocols like websockets or WebRTC are nice to have but only a dealbreaker for specialized projects. The idea is that they should be able to jump in and help out with any part of a web app, or implement a feature top to bottom without having to hand it off to someone else at a boundary.
This kind of research is walking head first into an ethical nightmare. I say stay the hell away.
FTA "I think the best strategy is to try to legislate sensible safeguards but work very hard to make sure the edge we get from technology on the good side is stronger than the edge that bad actors get."

Let's see...
- unauthorized access to computers (hacking) is illegal is most countries
- hackers often use malware as one of their tools
- anti-malware products are woefully inefficient at thwarting or even detecting most malware.

This is just one example, but I think the author's approach is ignorant at best.

In the West, we often view systemic problems as something external that we can fix with technology. This view was popularized in the Age of Enlightenment and runs very popular today.

The contrasting view-point is that systemic problems are internal (i.e. in the character of every human). For example, we have the technology and resources to end much of the world's hunger, but it does not happen because of greed and/or power that would be disrupted by all these hungry people suddenly not being hungry.

Systemic societal problems are both internal and external, but if we only talk about fixing external problems, we doom ourselves to (insert dystopian future here).
If you feel like that person was exploiting a power dynamic to coerce you into accepting her advance, and that the world would be a better place if you "named and shamed" (note your misdirection here, since the person we're discussing didn't "name and shame" anyone), then yes.
I believe the goal is some kind of universal basic income, where the developed countries affected by these changes provide similar benefits. Of course, no matter what the solution is, political and social structures will have to change drastically to accommodate this kind of change in the world.
I've been noticing that in pretty much every other article mainstream media publicizes. It's as if the occupation of an editor somehow completely disappeared.
Why I Decided to Quit My Startup – Startup Battles
We could all be farmers. We'd all have jobs. Work the fields by hand. You quickly see the flaw in the logic of the argument for more jobs. (It's much better to pay a much smaller % of your income for a few specialized persons to do the work)

You always want more work being done by less people. Video rental? Automate it! Automated kiosks becoming too much of a hassle for someone to constantly restock? Online streaming instead.

This is what we call progress. It's what is allowing us to even debate this as a topic. I hope it continues because it does create much higher paying jobs for those that do have jobs and it frees up the workforce to innovate even more.
> In human history, there have been three great technological revolutions and many smaller ones. The three great ones are the agricultural revolution, the industrial revolution, and the one we are now in the middle of—the software revolution.

Arguably the control of fire was a great revolution as well.
It doesn't work very well without broad participation.
I don't necessarily buy the "AI can end humanity" thing. As a cliche that's become very easy to repeat, but I've yet to see a postulated mechanism by which it could actually happen that isn't pure SF. The ending of human life would not be so easy for computers to accomplish.

But on the subject of concentration of power and the wide-scale elimination of low- and middle-range jobs I think he is dead on. I fear that the fastest way to put an end to humanity's climb up from the forest floor is to try and kick 70% of us off the ladder.
I'll check this out.
I don't think that's an easy task, at least at this point. Depending on when you want to start the clock, the 'software revolution' is a couple of decades old. It would be hard to separate what job losses occurred from software vs from outsourcing, the recessions, etc. Give it some time, when it's clear that the jobs aren't coming back, and then we'll have a good idea the causes and size of it.
Farmacia naturala: Banuti planta medicinala (Common daisy herb)
> I think the best strategy is to try to legislate sensible safeguards

This seems like an extremely difficult path to take, as legislature will either be preemptive and slow down innovation or lag behind in understanding the technology at which point it would be too late.