skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
How to Be a Programmer: A Short, Comprehensive, and Personal Summary
> 300+ pages is not "much shorter" than 332.

The actual regulations are 8 pages. Then there are 79 pages of citations to the Communications Act. The rest is a summary of the public feedback and the reasoning for Wheeler's decisions. [1]

I think 8 pages counts as much shorter than 332.

> Once new FCC powers are in place, do you actually think we have a chance at getting rid of them? History says no.

There are no new powers. The FCC has always had the power to decide if ISPs should be regulated under Title I or Title II. Hence, the current FCC deciding to regulate under Title II with forbearance does not make it easier for a future FCC to regulate under Title II without forbearance.

> There is a reason the FCC doesn't want the public to go through the proposal..and it is most likely not good.

They will go public with the proposal, as soon as they HAVE a proposal. Right now, the FCC does not have a proposal. Tom Wheeler has a proposal. It doesn't become the FCC's proposal until the full Commission votes.

Then it gets published, and we have at least 30 days to comment. If 30 days is not enough, it can be extended. That's what happened last year, when Wheeler's first proposal (which didn't use Title II) was passed by the Commission and made public. They received so many comments they greatly extended the comment period.

After the comment period is when the FCC makes the decision to accept the proposal as law or not. Last year, the did not, and went back to the drawing board to come up with something that addressed the concerns of the overwhelming majority of the commenters.

[1] http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/republican-fcc-commissio...
I worked on the shuttle program for a while and was debugging some fortran code that called honeywell assembly as part of a rewrite of the DOLILU program. It calculated stress on the shuttles frame based on winds aloft data collected by balloon on launch day.

The code passed in a jump parameter and the assembly jumped back to the appropriate fortran label. Over the years, all the exits except one had been coded out. I asked my boss if we could just make the fortran code jump directly from point A to point B since that's all the assembly did. He answered my 6 months contract would be done before the change made it through committee.

The thing about process is people rarely lessen or remove it once it's in place. But it's possible to do a classic waterfall project on time and on budget, look at any bank release of ATM software. Of course losing an orbiter or losing a plane isn't the same class of problem as losing a transaction, but it is possible to do the projects properly.

The fact the Obama administration had to bring in outside help to rescue their most recent major rollout (Obamacare insurance info websites) tells you there's no incentive to get it right or on time in these contracts. You just keep working and the bills keep getting paid.

These contracts need real oversight and financial penalties for failure to meet deadlines. Assuming of course they also include some iron-clad agreements about requirements not changing.
Regarding the "Ideal for Production" tagline - how would I go about running this in production? Specifically on linode - would I have to run a "regular" linux and then use kvm to run the rancheros iso?
Tomcat server.xml configuration example
Right, but there are more fixed price jobs than there seem - it's just a matter of marketing & structuring the gig. An example from my industry: the top recruiters won't touch a job if it resulted in less than $500 - $750/hour net.
I've had 9 on-sites in the past 4 months at both large companies and start-ups. A few reflections:

- Sometimes, a "No" means "we like your career trajectory; we've identified you as a candidate that we want to follow up with in ~6 months".

- Sometimes, a "No" means "we really like you; we think you'd be a fit here, we'll be constructing this team in ~6 months".

- Sometimes, a "No" means "we wont relocate; we wont fly you out here; we're only considering local (e.g. Bay Area) candidates".

- Sometimes, a "No" means that it's up to you to reflect on the situation. Take as many notes as you can during the process. Analyze what you said, wrote, acted, etc. It's up to you to determine how you could be better.

- When you get to the on-site and have the opportunity to learn a lot more, things might not be all ponies and rainbows like you'd imagine. Be open to what you didn't want to see, hear, or learn about. You might learn that you actually don't want to work here.

- You're racing against the clock. Balance is key. You hear advice about asking clarification questions, discussing trade-offs, etc. but at the end of the hour one of the most important things is the code you put up on that board. The interviewer will likely whip out their phone, take a pic, and that's that.

- Coding on a whiteboard, with a stranger, in an unfamiliar environment, after traveling many miles... is... challenging. Without much practice, you're at risk to fall flat on your face--I've face-planted my fair share, and it's always fuel to get back at it again.

- Interview as much as you possibly can. You learn about companies, people, technology, industry, challenges, etc. Practice, practice, practice.

- Sometimes, recruiters reach out to you for an initial call (you're excited), and then you learn that members of the hiring team haven't even seen your resume (orly? u think i haz de skillz dear rekrooter?). You then never hear back from the recruiter, or receive an email stating that they're not moving forward. I've only had a couple of these, but it's enough for me to strongly dislike contact before any member of the hiring team has reviewed my qualifications.
I was more surprised that after four successful interviews, my poor web-presence was enough to nullify that success.
That says authenticity. You're thought leader material now!
I'm still surprised anyone at any time thought Superfish was a good idea or something that customers would want. This was very obviously adware from the beginning and you can't tell me that not a single person raised any concerns about it inside the company.

Also,

> Q: I have to press you on that. What did the opt-in prose look like? Nobody recalls anything about this being opt-in.

> A: I don’t have it in front of me, but I will get it to you.

I would sincerely like to see that, because I've set up multiple Lenovo systems and I have never been given the opportunity to opt in to or out of any preloaded software.
Pill Reminder app for smartphone
"Be yourself" is a very weird piece of advice, and very often the wrong thing to do.

Do you want an offer? Don't be yourself: be who they need. If it requires you to be a bit different from who you are, so be it.

Once you get the offer, the power structure changes: you're the one in control. You're the one now faced with the tyranny of choice. This is when you can decide whether accepting this job would be at odds with who you are. But you know what? Even if that's the impression you got from the interview, your job at that company might still end up being different. You could end up in a team that's completely different from the ones who interviewed you. Or the job might end up being different. Or you might end up finding out you like things you didn't think you would.

Get an offer. At all costs. Then you're in charge.
Do these models take into account that it is sometimes beneficial for an individual to lose a game, and actually die in the process?

A howler monkey that warns others of approaching danger, but gets eaten in the process, may actually win genetically, if it saves the lives of its siblings, parents and offspring.
I've seen this before too but its always good to think about how the medium (written text, radio, video, web, etc) shapes and constrains the message being communicated.

This is not a new field of study* but new platforms like wearables could lead to new interactive mediums capable of helping us think in new ways. I'm sure the web is doing this in society already.

* see the work of Marshall McLuhan
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_McLuhan
> postulating a clear and unambiguous definition of a utility function. But the concept of "rationality" is richer than that

The word "rationality" may be ambiguous, as most words describing anything complex are, but the authors attempted to provide a clear model and work within those bounds. When we begin discussing the ideas informally, and using terms in a broader and more colloquial sense, then we're at fault if the results have become muddied.

The authors demonstrated a reasonable utility function, one which most people upon reflection would agree is logical, and demonstrated that people do not consistently act in a way that maximizes that function.

We can always move the goal post, and claim that if people appear to be acting irrationally it's because we simply don't understand their concept of rationality (or the more complex function they're maximizing). But that seems rather circular; it would be nice hear examples of a richer concept of rationality, in the context of the author's experiments, that might explain seemingly inconsistent behavior.
Are there ways to get the future beneficiaries of a new b2b product to fund its development, and that don't involve spending 6 month to raise funding?

Sort of... I've been spending my free time learning the ins and outs of retail/distribution. It's not the most transparent industry but 'factoring' plays a pretty big role. If you are pitching/selling a physical product (iphone case) to category buyer from a Big Retail chain and they like your product, then send you a Purchase Order to buy your product, but you don't have the funds to manufacture/package/distribute the product you can find a Factoring Company who will fund the money in exchange for the Purchase Order from the Big Retailer. Some say the rates are too high and terms aren't great, but they can be a good source of backing. A lot of companies use Factoring. Perhaps maybe some Angels will start thinking about doing Factor deals in the near future.
Aha, that exists in the U.S. too; thanks for the tip. I think I heard a complaint that the current implementation doesn't truly always do a verbatim search, but I tried a couple of experiments and so far it did appear to have the behavior I expected (at least when putting the entire search term in quotes).

I agree with your chagrin at the loss of the plus symbol.
I don't think you can install and run arbitrary stuff on Linode, so you'd have to convince Linode to provide an OS image for RancherOS.

(Or goof around copying stuff onto a disk image.)
Can't you just create two detached signatures?
As a violinist, this is exactly right. Violins are not standardized, and are certainly not interchangeable. Everything from the dimensions of the body and fingerboard to the exact locations of the "sweet spots" where the instrument will respond most fully will differ. It takes weeks or months to really learn to play a particular instrument, and a test that only gives players a minute will not reflect how well the instrument can sound in the hands of an experienced player.

Another issue is that the instrument will sound very different to the player than to an audience, due to the way the sound is projected out of the ƒ holes.

That said, I think there is a growing consensus that the Cremona violins are a bit overrated, and that modern makers are making wonderful instruments for a tiny fraction of the price. When I bought my current instrument I ended up with a modern American violin, which I preferred to old Italian and French instruments that cost many times as much.
I have been working at a smallish startup for the last 2 years and have spent a lot of time hiring people. You have not asked for comments about what might have led to your rejection, so feel free to disregard this free advice. Obviously I don't have enough information to give you real feedback, but perhaps the following will be helpful.

By far and away the biggest reason we tend to reject junior/intermediate people who have had a decent interview is that their view of their own level and our impression of the same level appears to be grossly at odds. We don't expect junior people to know how to do everything, but rather hire people where we can see very good growth potential. We have an exceptionally low attrition rate, so this has worked out very well for us.

There were several things in your web page that would raise immediate warning flags for me if I were to see it in an interview. As others have mentioned, the attention to numbers makes me feel that you are justifying yourself. For example, the translation of the time you spent on a personal project to money makes me feel that you are trying very hard to make it sound impressive. The details about how many hours a course took and how you spent many more hours making notes makes me think that you want this to be a very impressive thing.

Please don't take this as a personal attack. It is a very good thing to be proud of your accomplishments and to use the good feelings as a springboard to your next project. The only problem is that you will find that these accomplishments will really pale when compared against the many people who have nurtured side projects for years, written hundreds or thousands of pages of peer reviewed documentation, designed and given courses (as opposed to taking them), etc.

My point is not to discourage you -- just the opposite! I love to see CVs where people take initiative and invest their own time in things they love. No matter how small the thing might be, it always has the potential to be a seed that grows into a tree. But if I get the sense that you are over valuing your accomplishment I am left to wonder -- is that all this person is capable of? I am looking for amazing growth in the applicant. Can they do something 10 times more impressive with some guidance? 100 times more impressive? Or will they hit a glass ceiling and say, "This is as good as anyone could reasonably expect me to be".

Even if someone has potential, they don't always have the maturity yet to bring that potential to fruition. My advice is simple. Present your accomplishments with no embellishment or sales pitch. If they are impressive, then the interviewer will be impressed. If they are not impressed, then you have a very real opportunity. Ask the question, "What would make you impressed and can you help me get to the point to be able to do that?" If they can, then the job will be yours. If they can't then it is not a job you want anyway.
Thanks for the book recommendation.
Docker is a user interface and policy wrapper around core Linux features. It's not, in itself, a virtualisation or container system. So... not likely!

(But you can use Docker as a user interface / API to non-Linux container implementations -- see all the stuff the Joyent folk are doing.)
not to mention the build errors people had when they released it.
Your post strikes me as confirmation bias. There is nothing in the story that directly suggests they were rejected based on culture fit. Neither were the questions especially vague or of topic
I also recently went through an interview process lasting over 3+ weeks, 3 separate interviews with 4 different people. Initial phone interview and skype for the other 2. Oh and add to that tech tests lasting over 3 hours, completed after screening interview.

In the end I didn't get an offer, with a one liner explanation.

I was grateful that they even gave me a chance and hold no hard feeling against them BUT I'm pissed about the waste, on my and their part. On the days I had the interviews, I wasn't productive at all as I spent time preparing, managing my nervousness (pacing around), and decompressing after interview. Those are a few days I won't get back. Even without putting monetary value on it, I think all can agree it is a big waste.

After all that, all I got was a stinking one liner explanation, that I wasn't a good fit. What was the tech test for?

One person on the team I talked to seemed as if he hadn't seen my resume until the interview time. He was going down my resume and asking questions and I could tell that it was his first time reading it. And I also feel that was the person that gave thumbs down.

I hope their accounting knows that 1 person cost the COMPANY nearly 6 man hours of their employees, for nothing.

EDIT:
From what I've seen previous jobs, managers and team members are asked to interview the candidate, not necessarily say yes/no based on the resume alone.

Not that anyone will listen but I think it would help if HR asked managers/team-members to give up/down on each resume before calling in for interview. If enough give down, don't call in for interview. Save time for all.
Yahoo's security boss faces down NSA director over crypto ban
I've been periodically thinking about a tattoo based on this story for actual decades. Anyone know of any art based on it?
Be interesting to compare this to some Indian cities.
kinda sorta mostly beating EFF to the punch?

AWESOME! this makes the world a better, safer place....and especially after showing some love to djb the other day, this is pretty excellent news.
Studying people is much harder than doing math proofs or experimenting with chemicals.
I'm a little surprised they didn't throw their CTO under the bus.
Today’s $100M+ Late-Stage Rounds Very Different from IPOs
What Clever Robots Mean for Jobs
And many of those truck drivers are misclassified.

http://www.nelp.org/page/-/Justice/2014/Big-Rig-Overhaul-Mis...
All under the watch of our Nobel Peace Prize winning president's former chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel.
that's a lot of psychological manipulation
I am - roughly - a GPG fan. I've done classes on it, used it at work and at home, etc.

GPG is a terrible UX. Accidental use of GPG tends to fail open, and insecurity results. Futzing with different keys, rotating them, retracting them, etc, are grievous. I can't reencrypt old stuff to new stuff (e.g., a pw database) without spending a good deal of time thinking about attacks, file safety, etc.

I'm really a distributed encrypted email fan, I guess. I want to securely communicate over email to my friends and family, without having to do the GPG dance.
I had worked on this a few years back, and I quit to start a startup. Sorry. (Not sorry.)
True. I think most people want the lowest price for a specific branded product. They start off by deciding, more or less, on getting a certain level of perceived quality, and then finding low prices. The price is secondary to making the decision to purchase a product.

As far as making a "social statement" - buying most recognizable or branded products is a kind of social statement. If it weren't, we wouldn't have such a diverse selection of cars, clothes and laptops.
> but I would never work for a company that does drug testing.

I wouldn't drug test employees, but I can understand why some companies might be compelled to do so. I have friends who smoke pot recreationally, and they're fine. I have also had friends/coworkers who became genuinely addicted to drugs, and very consistently they ended up as ticking time bombs for their employers. Things didn't end poorly, they ended disastrously. I know that's not always the case, and that it doesn't justify drug screening everyone, and that it's an unpopular opinion here. But I've seen enough that I know why some employers think it's worth it.
I get what you're saying.

My point is when you're interviewing, do your thing, show them what you have, show them your capabilities, your dedication, vision, whatever, using your way --using 'zak_mc_krackens'' style is not going to work for me, because I will not wear it well. I won't do your technique justice. Sure, over time, one learns how to refine interviewing skills/technique, but we do it in our own 'voices'.

Don't over think it. As I said, you can do everything just right, but for whatever reason, they pick someone else. They may even consciously come to regret their decision --just like in dating. Interviewing and dating are more art than science. Sure, be prepared, show your stuff, but none of that guarantees landing the job. So there is no reason to beat yourself up for not getting the job.
"Lockheed Martin began developing the software for it in 2002"

I see your problem right there.
Heh, that's exactly how I got my last job.

As you note, there are interviewers that want to gauge how a candidate will react under pressure (as if a job interview wasn't enough pressure already). It's a strong signal that the company has some problems, if "ability to work under pressure" is a job requirement.

Another trick is that management/finance/accounting/legal consultancies will often arrange a "social" evening for candidates, including alcohol. If you find yourself in such a situation, you know how you should behave but you can guarantee that someone will mess up.

One last point, when I conduct a technical interview, I often will attempt to gauge a candidate's depth of knowledge in a particular subject. That means I will ask harder and harder questions until there is one that the candidate cannot answer. Please note that "I don't know but..." is the perfect answer and often leads to a great conversation about related tech or work experience that might just land you the job. Trying to make up some BS answer will not.
"USCIS estimates the number of individuals eligible to apply for employment authorization under this rule could be as high as 179,600 in the first year and 55,000 annually in subsequent years."

http://www.uscis.gov/news/dhs-extends-eligibility-employment...
The Docker logo is cute because it isn't trying to be cute.
I'm not sure they're very different, if at all. I guess a public valuation is a bit under what you'd actually need to pay to acquire it outright.
This looks like Plague! Any comments on how it is different?
this was kind of interesting, but possibly misguided. I think their goal is to somewhat increase response and projection while keeping the tonal character of the instruments. Otherwise, they could just put higher bridges and replace the Pirazzis and Jargars (strings) with, say, higher gauge steelcore Preludes, the idea being to increase string tension and breakover angle at the bridge to increase downward force at the bridge. Likewise, heavier bow, more hairs, and make sure the shoulder rest is not damping the back plate at all. But except for the last, these will markedly change the attack and tone, or the heavier bow will throw off the players' technique. Also i think the Russian right hand technique lends itself to more volume but more laborious bow recoveries. I'll have to look at Galamian's book about that [2]

If anybody's interested, you can try to understand Strobel's userful measurements [1]. for my student violin and viola I more or less gave up, and just defer to my luthier's bridge and soundpost intuition.

_____________

finally, there's the ergonomic viola with substantially larger top and back plates, for greater projection[3]. i don't think i've ever seen one played. String players are a conservative lot.

[1] http://www.amazon.com/Useful-Measurements-Violin-Makers-Refe...

[2] http://www.sharmusic.com/Sheet-Music/Violin/Etudes-47-Studie...

[3] http://www.rivinus-instruments.com/Pellegrina.htm
After only 18 months Frank Body will exceed $20M in revenue this year
I'm not saying your wrong, but shuttle software and even ATMs are different from Obamacare. The former has specific operational requirements that are relatively clear. Health care by contrast is a clusterfuck of legislation piled on top a multitude of tangential legacy systems. I don't doubt that the talent to get it right exists, but it requires more juice than just an engineer saying "this thing won't fly". The problem is that legislation is itself code, but it is written by people who have no nuanced knowledge of the downstream implications, and perhaps more importantly, no incentive to ever refactor.
Chicago police detain Americans at abuse-laden 'black site'
Your selfie on the video looks amazing too.