skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
"size" is perfectly known in the code. Before shooting off into functional rearchitecture land, a simple common sense question like "by unknown you mean arbitrary, right?" would have been more sensible. In addition, the candidate thinks "being asked to whiteboard code was an excuse to have a technical conversation with a future colleague" but spends the entire time having a monologue rather than a conversation, and seems pleased about it.
Try to parse any tree structure without creating cycles (say the XML/XHTML inside an ebook) - that may be possibly with just one or two devs on the project but as soon as every dev doesn't know every line of code there is an oppertunity for errors and you only need one link to leak memory.

That Dalvik can't handle the cycles is stupid but an issue with Dalvik (that is likely to be phased out with the new runtime) not an issue with GC. Computers are really, really, good about executing trivial tasks repeatedly without ever making a stupid mistake, humans not so.

And as Terminator taught us: never send a human to do a machines job.
Your account is kind of virtual asset/liability. It should be possible to throw it away when you no longer want it.

In forums where you input is important for the overall experience:
- username could become "deleted_account_42"
- you personal details completely removed from the database
- random password assigned to this account.
And voila!
> who reads long comments anyway?

I do! It's great that someone is able to see through an emotional response and explicitly address most of the points. I'll try doing the same (and also in reverse order).

> the Russian way is better because there is a duopoly
> in the job-board market, rather than meaningful competition

The Russian way is better because the marketplace is more efficient for both sides. If I'm a candidate, I have direct access to more real, existing, non-anonymized vacancies. If I'm a hiring company I have the way to target those looking for jobs. You cover the positive results of that with negative wording ("monopoly"), but in reality it's much less one-sided. Would someone willing to purchase some goods prefer to deal on the phone with people with limited inventories or go directly to something like eBay? Is eBay a monopoly in this case? Answer for both: of course not.

> Fourthly, ... Where should you post a Python job?

You are describing the very root of the problem and make it sound as if it's something to be proud of. As a hiring company, I can also use a multi-poster too. But now think about a candidate. Where would they go to search for a Python job? Aston Carter? Oxygen Recruitment? Any other scammy-looking firm harvesting their CVs?

> Thirdly, ... Is it safe to make him a job offer?

Sorry, but for this sort of advice, I'll call my lawyer and my lawyer only. We hired a company specializing in legal services for startups the day we raised funding.

> Secondly, ... you'll get a feel for how time-consuming it can be to hire
> a single role. When you have 5 to fill, it can become a full-time job.

I did it, so I know. You are right, it's a very time-consuming process. When my company grew to four people, subsequent hires were driven by an in-house hiring consultant (former recruiter now doing consulting) working one day a week.

Would you argue that a person sitting next to you, being able to talk to hiring person (me) in case of any doubt, speaking on behalf of your company (emailing candidates from @company-mail.com, not @recruiter-company-mail.com) and costing fraction of recruiter cost is better than a recruiter from an outside firm?

> Firstly, ... You could see this as introducing
> liquidity to the market.

Market liquidity is not a good thing in itself. Its only purpose is to reduce spread between bid and ask prices, but by introducing your fee for a bidder you actually increased the spread. You surely can argue that you did a universal good thing for those applicants but you definitely don't bring more efficiency into the market.

I understand this conversation is a bit meaningless. It's as if someone would talk to me saying that programming profession is outdated and needs to be replaced with something else. I would refuse to believe that, of course.
Well, first of all: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism

Second of all, you missed the point of this sub-thread. Even one of the quoted scientists claims, "Bell's theorem is the most profound discovery of science."

He didn't say it "destroyed science".

How does the theory of the randomness described in QMT destroy science?
So if you end up with more than a certain number of allocations you can write a memory pointer to any place you want, then execute the code there?

Because that does not at all sound like a huge exploit.
Is it any way better/faster than luajit or vanilla lua? I can't understand why people are so excited about it.
Your electricity usage patterns are enough to determine your schedule, especially if you have electric water heating. Browse through some systems at PVOutput.org until you find one that publishes power usage data; you can usually see when the occupants wake up, when they do their washing on the weekends, when they turn on the TV in the evening, and when they go to sleep.

With higher precision usage readings, you can determine what they're watching on their TV [0] [1].

I agree that the internet-of-things is another concerning layer of risk for privacy and security, though.

[0]: https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2012/01/08/28c3-smart-meter...

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYe4SwQn2GE
Because they want to feel they have their own personal servant.
You should have a look at MetaTrader. It provide tools for back-testing and dynamic spread etc..

I have been building also my own platform (with nodejs as for high IO), but you easily loose focus when you have to build it ALL by you're self..

(opensource) platforms like MT4 / MT5 give you more time to spend on actual alghorithmes, then on data structures etc
Sounds like what we try to do in Europe.
Show HN: x11-leet – turn your machine into a leet workstation
>At this point in time, the majority of humanity toils for subsistence. A sizeable minority work to pay for their lifestyle (aka the work-life balance level), and they are a bajillion times more productive than the subsistence workers. A tiny slice of us are now able to work with passion, on what we want to do. Like artists working on a song or a painting or a book, they do not draw a clear line between work and play. They're always working and always playing. With this they achieve a level of enjoyment of life and of productivity that the work-life balance crowd cannot touch.

I disagree. I have some big-picture Passions and Projects. More than one, actually. There is more to be done in the fields I want to work in than I could ever do, in my entire life.

Nonetheless, sometimes I am tired of working and want to "go the fuck home" and just do something else. I have family and friends whom I care for and with whom I want to spend time. I have other hobbies and activities outside work. I have places to go, things to do, people to see outside work. I'm not balancing work against daytime television, I'm balancing it against all the other brilliant, wonderful things in my life.

I'm also balancing it against the immense willingness of employers in almost all sectors to exploit the hell out of me should I actually become that invested in my work, and against the simple fact that I have to work on what an employer wants (ultimately, what a market wants) to earn a salary, since funding cuts and such have made a life "pursuing my passions" in research academia economically nonviable for all but 2% of trained researchers.

So yeah: let me work well and with reasonable, but not passionate, enthusiasm, and then give me my salary and my benefits and let me go home. It's the only human way to run things when there are this many conflicting demands, pressures, and interests creating the situation.
I think OP wants to allow posters to disassociate their username from the comments retroactively rather than delete the comments themselves.
Some of it, yeah, and I don't blame him for what came to be, in theory everything is nice and should work, in practice, it's been shown what can be done in guise of it.
That's why everyone changes binary files directly when they alter their code?
contd. Though maybe this is as good as forum as any? In order to have a less wasteful and whimsically arranged society perhaps we need to constantly analyse and critique it, to not ever be passive and thoughtless of the consequences of things?
I was open minded when I saw the title of this piece, but now I still don't understand what it was trying so hard to say. The author seems to be mad at reality and is hard at work promoting envy. Inequality is a legitimate concern, but this sort of emotional agitation is helping no one.
You're basically describing ODesk, Elance, Mechanical Turk, etc... Not saying this execution will/won't work, but there are lots of firms that seemed to have make it work to solve a similar / the same problem set.
Reading this led me to want to know if there are still people working on new games for the SNES (by hacking the system). Here's a 2014 article on this, in case anyone else is interested.

http://animalnewyork.com/2014/meet-people-making-new-games-a...
I'm not sure about you but I'd like to see as cool of a future as possible, and that means living a really really long time.
You can, but really should you bother? There are funds which are done with automated trading, they're not the sort of thing you'll see on TV but they are about. I've had one for over ten years and it has returned about 15% pa since then. In the early days it was over 20% but the system started to lose its edge and 2008 killed it, it has been coming back, but has a ways to go.

This type of approach is far better than trying to build your own, unless, 'your own' has an edge you have come up with. I stopped when I realised I had no edge, no unique method or insight.

I still believe you could still develop a neat system that deprioritised the entry signal - and focussed just on letting winners run and cutting losses. That requires a very low cost transaction model however.
My theory on why it's such a difficult problem to understand is that it's too easy to get caught up in the real world problem, when this isn't actually a real world problem.

In the "real world" problem there are additional variables to consider, such as whether or not the host would open a door containing a car, whether that would result in a win or a loss, whether the host would offer a switch in all cases, whether if so, there is any additional incentive for switching (which wouldn't adjust the probability of winning, so is a red herring, but "intuitively" it seems that if the host is trying to make you lose by trying to make you switch, probability should go down).

When you try to conflate the real world problem, which actually has multiple different probabilities depending on exact scenario, into an answer to what's generally accepted as the "Monty Hall Problem", some of this gets in the way.

In addition, there are two probabilities in the "Monty Hall Problem" - the first is whether your switch results in a win. The second is the probability that, if you switch, it was the correct choice.
Actually my point is to read Marx to realise one possible (and the most popular at that) scenario that will come about.

Once that is fully understood, then we can return to ask the question: "Why hasn't this fully happened yet?" and look to history to provide the answers of the failures of the attempts, but more pertinently the techniques the West applied to avoid the scenario from playing out.

As my other comment states, the thing to do... given that everyone on here is in the top 5%, and a few in the top 1%... is to realise that it is actually up to us as those in positions of influence, power and wealth to re-engineer the system to help make it a sustainable one.

Inequality, or specifically the symptoms of inequality, are an issue that we need to address.
Move Your Applications Between Google Play Developer Console
Watch exodus gods and kings 2014
This would be valuable only with a proper test suite, nothing fancy but two files with valid and invalid addresses. I don't trust these and very hard to debug a complex regex, it's wway easier to argue about test cases.
It is still pretty difficult to follow who is responding to whom if a bunch of users have deleted their accounts, making reply threads confusing.
I'm not sure if the Naughton is trying to incite populist rage or evoke some sort of self-conscious shame. Maybe both? Either way it is ridiculous.

Tech elites have always existed in a parallel universe. Careful tending to their needs and acceptance of their peculiarities has been part of the bargain with those in power.
Then again, so do the BSD tools. And of course the options are often not compatible between the two e.g. bsd sed's -l enables line buffering, gnu sed's -l specifies line-wrapping length; bsd sed's -i requires an extension (empty for no backup) while gnu sed's does not.

POSIX sed supports exactly 3 options (-n, -e and -f), the latest FreeBSD sed supports 10 (adding -E, -a, -I, -i, -l, -r and -u — the last two being GNUism compatibility options not necessarily available on older versions, they are not on my OSX machine) and GNU sed supports 9 short and an additional 4 long options. And that's not counting the extensions to the sed command set.
I'm worried about the form of the redistribution. In France, we have small taxes in many places. Just one example: We dealt with copyright issues by creating a tax on storage mediums, from a few cents to 20-40€ depending on the container, the size and the volatility - more than 40 different tax levels (see tables here [1]). Obviously they included the bureaucracy feature, where if you're a company you can send back a form and be reimbursed. I'm confident the same kind of insane level of tax compexity exists in pretty much any country and it implements revenue equality by squashing entrepreneurship at its root. Less innovation, less inequality ;)

So let's go ahead: Which forms of redistribution would do you see? Your comment made me notice that taxes proportional to the number of ads already exist (the VAT) and doesn't help redistributing. We need to take into account the change of scale. Would it be a tax per number of available cars for car-sharing services, then a tax per node in the friend graph for social networks? Sounds insane, but is it what we're bound to implement?

[1] http://www.culturecommunication.gouv.fr/Politiques-ministeri...
I honestly don't understand why bitter, unaccomplished people believe that someone who creates wealth has an obligation to share that wealth with them. I believe that's commonly called "jealousy" and no, it doesn't give you a moral high ground, nor will it solve any of your problems and it will certainly not make you richer any time soon - quite the contrary, it ensures that you will remain miserable for the rest of your life.
Things like Mechanical Turk are just creating minimum wage jobs and we were better of without them, I think.

Magic will create many call-center like jobs...
> My view is that the industrial revolution devised machines which, whilst increasing the efficiency of production, helped to increase the efficiency by which states and key individuals were able to extract wealth from others... as time progressed, the people started to become aware of the inequality.

Your armchair version of economic history seems a little squishy.

What of the earlier inequality? What of the landed nobility, kings and barons and knights, the historical elites which we had before the entrepreneurial ones? Were the people simply blind to the inequality at the time?

And if the result of the industrial revolution is construed as a better way to extract wealth from human beings, then why were both elites and commoners materially better off than they were as serfs?

<editorializing on>

Heaven forbid that we should respect capital investment for being able to generate wealth better and more efficiently. Surely this would be a betrayal of class solidarity and the dignity of labor.
Check out omnitrader.Com as a potential platform for building your algorithms. Whilst there also check their product myomnivest. If you want to go big-time as I have, check into their Nirvana club. Not cheap but their auto trading algorithms are extremely sophisticated.
Perl 6 – Getting beyond static vs. dynamic [pdf]
Arguably, you don't need actual usernames to follow a thread, just a way to differentiate one user from another. Imageboards get by with extremely weak identity and referencing other posts rather than users, although, imageboards aren't exactly concerned with long-term quality conversations either. Still, it's possible to follow a thread without any identities at all.

This would mean something a bit smarter than just replacing usernames with [deleted] though. Perhaps [deleted #nnn] or some other token.

Edit: and if you really wanted to get paranoid about ambiguity, generate a new token per thread rather than per user, making it all but impossible to correlate the entire posting history for a deleted account.

Also arguably, a thread for which a majority of users have deleted their accounts might not be worth following anyway.
I agree wholeheartedly. This should be a basic privacy feature to be able to mark comments as 'Anonymous' as well as to be able to change the displayed usernames. This is feasible from the technical perspective, it seems that it is only not done due to either developer apathy or to explicitly facilitate surveillance.

N.B. - I deal with this problem by sporadically creating new accounts.
This is not true, look at how Stack Exchange handles deleting users: Generate a random user with a specific pattern.
Is there a difference between locking your account and just removing the email and keying in a random password? Once you've logged out, your account should be effectively locked permanently.
This is something I've wanted for a long time too. I emailed HN a couple of times but got no reply. I understand preventing people deleting accounts as it would destroy past discussions but changing the username shouldn't be an issue.
Why I Never Let Employees Negotiate a Raise (2009)
Re-distribution?? Ex-cuse-me?? These aren't YOUR cookies, you bum! Make your own cookies and THEN worry about re-distribution! When someone else has made the cookies, YOU DON'T GET A SAY in how they are distributed, do you get that?
I simply don't validate emails up front anymore. The only thing I check for is if the string contains an @-char, I only do that to be nice if it's left out by accident. Instead of having a monstrous regex pattern in my code I simply email a confirmation link the user must confirm.
Utterly pointless. An email regex tells you that the email address (probably) conforms to a pattern that means it might be a valid email address (for now, until new weird TLDs emerge and the patterns have to change...), but it has no way of telling you whether that address can actually receive mail. `foo@bar` fails these regular expressions and `foo@bar.invalid` passes them, but neither will receive mail.

As I have told people for many years: if you must do this, check at most if there's an @ and (perhaps) a dot somewhere after the @, which is enough to stop someone who has accidentally put their name in the email address field, or a similar user error. Anything else is a waste of brainwidth and will result in more problems than it solves.
Anti-depressants work and aren't expensive.
Obviously I disagree, but I can't believe I forgot the #1 easiest way to bootstrap: hydroelectric power. Unless the disaster is so great it destroys all these dams, multiple groups of people have the potential for a perhaps small, but generally reliable source of electricity. From that you can build back everything.

Anyway, there's nothing stopping you from believing it's impossible, and ... what will you and yours do after a sufficiently big disaster? All I know is me and mine won't lie down and die.
Not using it for future posts doesn't address the problem for past posts.

Let's say a user slipped up and used a similar name on site X as they did on site Y, and they don't wish for their comments to be pooled into a more comprehensive profile someone may be keeping.
>> "if you know you'll never be able to delete your account and posts, you'll be more careful about what you say."

Most people probably don't know they can't delete their account until they attempt to delete their account.
What happens to Dragons' Den investments after the cameras stop rolling?
Interesting piece in today's Sunday Telegraph showing that over half of Dragons' Den investments fall through after the show (in the UK at least)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/businessclub/money/11425328/Half-of-Dragons-Den-investments-fall-through-after-the-show.html

Bit of a shame really that it's just another made for TV affair and not a serious business thing.

There are a few that have been successful though, you can filter them in the interactive piece the research is based on - https://www.tigermobiles.com/dragons-den/. Looks like Peter Jones is the guy who puts up the cash most often.

Looking at some of the accounts for a selection of ones I remember watching isn't very pretty though, many of them are just scraping along.

Anyone have any info on other parts of the world seen as though it's shown globally?
https://i.imgur.com/SUncHzQ.jpg
Using WooCommerce and Memcached? Your website may be running slow
>1) Like Cameron, most SV tech workers are utterly convinced that they are doing "good", even if that means replacing jobs with machines.

I'm not convinced! I'm an ideological accelerationist! I think that I need to push the automation process to act more quickly in order to bring about the severe contrasts between "now" and "then" that make human beings sit up, take notice, and actually make social change. I think if we let the process move too slowly, we risk winding up in a new Dark Age in which not only do we suffer severe inequality and oppression, but we rationalize and allow them through a publicly-endorsed ideology that explicitly structures society hierarchically.

I want people to get shocked by exploitation and inequality, shocked into fighting them, before they get so damned used to it that they just allow themselves to be exploited and oppressed.
Australia's competitive advantage is the rule of law. This is the main reason it and places like Canada are valued by foreigners buying real estate.

Australia is particularly valued as the only non-city-state country with close to perfect rule of law and predictable individual rights in Asia, i.e. a relatively short flight away from the homes of the current buyers. Fancy taking a punt on the direction foreigner investment rules are taking in the next ten years in Indonesia?

Arguably, Singapore's and Hong Kong's economic success stems from similar concerns.
> Or at least give an option to disable/lock the account.

Change your password to a random string, add HN on your email systems spam list, so you don't feel any cravings to reset it by mailing yourself a new password.
There are actually several, of common lineage: OCaml, F#, Haskell.
I also have wanted this for a while. Many months back, I had a troll from Hacker News plaguing me in the real world and it was frightening. At the time, I really wanted a way to disassociate my posts from my real name but I understand there is no mechanism.
This would all be true if we could easily identify who's creating wealth. Hint: it does not completely equal with individuals who receive the money in the end. Over the couple of thousand years societies realized this, that's why the societies try to smoothen things out a little. It is nice to think that we, technologists in our 20s, 30s have figured it all out because we read Atlas Shrugged once, but reality is slightly more complex. :)
(Disclaimer: I consider myself a libertarian, but I am already too old to think that a few simple rules could save the world.)