skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
There are jobs that are legitimately BS and everyone within the industry knows it but works hard at it anyways because it's their job.

In the investment world there are a lot that come to mind.

A large number of financial advisors' entire job is just sales: they get clients funneled to companies that do the stock picking. They know these companies will not beat the indexes but it's safe, accepted, absolves them somewhat of responsibility when things go south, and these companies give them all the talking points they need to deal with clients efficiently so they can collect more.

Those companies see their job as not being out of line with the stock market indexes. They have to be a little different to justify their existence but not different enough to risk being way short of the benchmark. It is impossible for them to beat the market with their levels of risk aversion + fees, and there is no real incentive to do so. Within these companies, a large majority of the effort therefore goes to marketing to financial advisors trying to get their clients' money.

That's putting aside the question of whether there is any societal value if these RIA's were even trying and succeeding at getting more returns for their clients.
First, people keep saying "private equity" - most investment in the US is private equity (eg every time an angel invests into a company, it's a private equity investment).

I will assume what is being referred to here, is LBO or more aggressive acquisition type firms like Bain.

The parent is right however, if Bain comes knocking on your private business, it's up to you as to whether you take their money. They do not use force to make you take their money or terms. I don't think the parent is making an argument in favor of these companies being saints, rather, that they function on a voluntary basis.
I am using one for a large portion of my waking hours, I agree with the OP. I would argue that your definition of control is more limited than theirs or mine.
I think the challenge here will be in the overhead of finding and evaluating suitable projects, given that you can use each one only once.
These IPs are part of a spam bot net
But as a practical matter, the Apple product is the one that's simple enough to use where the users feel in control. My mom used to fear her Windows PC. She controls her iPhone and iPad.

The other day, I tried to set up a computer as a Netflix machine in the guest bedroom. Ubuntu 14.10 on a pretty standard i5-4200 machine. Spent a couple of hours fighting to get audio output over HDMI--futzing with Pulse Audio, installing new drivers, etc. Gave up and installed Windows on the machine. I can't say the experience was an empowering one that made me feel in control.
To me, This sort of thing doesn't demonstrate their is value in an idea, rather it demonstrates the value of asymmetric information.
EA has a very large studio there that produces the FIFA video game franchise among other things.
A C pointer is not a reference in the way we are using the word reference in this discussion (as in pass-by-reference, as in an alias for another value without applying any operators).

Sure, the C standard uses the English word "reference", as in "refers to" and "referred to", but letting that confuse you without understanding the meaning of the word in context is what lead to this Java mess in the first place. Don't bring C into it too.
Even if you concede all those points (which I won't) the entire Marxist system relies on the labor theory of value which was smashed by Eugen Böhm von Bawerk in his book "Karl Marx and the Close of His System". No one has really bothered to follow up on it since it was so definitive.

That his theory lives on is a testament to the degree to which people a.) never learn anything ever and b.) the intoxicating nature of what he proposes.
Example data being sent.
Array
(
[list] => eGtjbGssa29jZkJqbXZvY2tuLGRwIXhrY2xrLG9td3BjZkJxZHAsZHAheGtjbGs
sbG1wY0JhbndgL2tsdmdwZ2x2LGRwIXhrY2xrLG1wY2xCam12b2NrbixkcCF4a2
NsayxxY2BrbGdCZW9ja24sYW1vIXhrY2xrMjQzM0JqbXZvY2tuLGRwIXhrY2xrM
jpCam12b2NrbixkcCF4a2NsazMxMjI1Qmptdm9ja24sZHAheGtjbGszNy8xNkJq
bXZvY2tuLGRwIXhrY2xrMzcyQmptdm9ja24sYGcheGtjbGszNUJqbXZvY2tuLGB
nIXhrY2xrMzsyMSx4ZEJlb2NrbixhbW8heGtjbGszOzA6Qm5rdGcsZHAheGtjbG
szOzs1M0Jua3RnLGRwIXhrY2xrMDIzMDAyMzNCam12b2NrbixkcCF4a2NsazAyZ
ngwNUJua3RnLGRwIXhrY2xrMTJCam12b2NrbixkcCF4a2NsazE6Qmptdm9ja24s
ZHAheGtjbGs2MDoyMkJua3RnLGRwIXhrY2xrNzNCbmt0ZyxkcA==
[data] =>
PldRR1A8a2xncV1xdmd1Y3B2Pi1XUUdQPA8IPkxDT0c8IEtsZ3EiUXZndWNwdiA
+LUxDT0c8Dwg+UVdASDxEdTgiIlBtb2Nsa2MiRmdua2MiQXciUnBrZ3ZnbGduZy
JBY3ZncGtsYWMiT2N6a29jPi1RV0BIPA8IPlFATUZbPA8IPmZrdDwPCFBtb2Nsa
2MiRmdua2MiQXciUnBrZ3ZnbGduZyJBY3ZncGtsYWMiT2N6a29jIj5jImpwZ2Q/
IGp2dnI4LS1vbXJjdSxsZ3YtdXIvYW1sdmdsdi1ybndla2xxLWN3dm1vY3ZnZi9
pZ3t1bXBmcS9lZ2xncGN2bXAtZWdsZ3BjbixyanI9J09DS05dR0wnIDxhbmthaS
JqZ3BnPi1jPA8IPi1ma3Q8Dwg+LVFATUZbPA==
[en] => 1
)
"Today, proletarianized white-collar workers are required to work 50-60 hours a week."

This sounds barbaric to the ears of an European salaryman.
Exactly what I came here to say: it's an albatross. There's nothing compelling about a wrist computer that a pocket computer doesn't already do.
Which Macbook can I choose that has 2 physical trackpad buttons instead of just one multi-touch pad? I need it because multi-touch sucks for video games, but Apple only offers the one option. How about a laptop with a number pad? You don't get these choices because it's bad for Apple's bottom-line.

I'd also like to replace the OS X Dock with a Taskbar app, but all of the taskbar apps have the same bug because Apple doesn't let software developers modify the NSScreen.visibleFrame property (only the Dock can do that). So, windows always end up behind the taskbar. On Windows all of the APIs are there to replace the Taskbar with a Dock if I want to.

I'd also like to turn off the Macbook display when plugged into an external monitor.
Thoughts on back-end frameworks
One of the Tested guys pointed out there was a big hazard with Apple eroding the feel of it's brand - no matter who you are, if you buy an iPhone then you have the same iPhone as any celebrity.

With the watch...that's only going to be kind of marginally true: you'll have the same electronics package, but there's an importance psychological difference when Apple is also selling the $10,000 Kanye-edition watch in the same store (and has to publicly assign importance to that - they can't do that and then publicly be smug about it being a waste of money).
I don't see how geeks aren't as much of a "trophy generation" as it gets. So I think you know the answer o your question. Yes, there are exception. But the ration between opportunity and chip on their shoulder seems pretty high.
Motion Graphics Animation by Florian de Looij
TempleOS is applying to Y Combinator. Partners desired, send an email
Similarly, I dropped out of university after one semester and went on to work as a web developer for the last five years. I helped to build one company and now have a standing offer to become a CTO for significant $$$ and lovely working conditions. I choose to forgo that offer in order to go back to school but that is because I want to become a scientist not because the lack of a degree in any way impeded my professional development.

I do not agree that the want of any practical skill or piece of knowledge is a good reason to go back to school. Formal education is about credentials, which are needed to open certain doors.
Whoops. Thanks, I messed up pretty badly, didn't I.
Has it only been capitalists who follow this trend, or have more or less all systems followed these patterns? Are there large economies which follow other systems, be they communist, socialist, kleptolists, or any other types able to bring forth a workers' paradise?

The one thing I sympathize with is the steamrolling of the low wage worker where some of those jobs are such that they don't have regular hours and can't get a full forty hours in order to skirt some labor laws and in order to maximize flexibility for the commercial concerns.

On the other hand I'd totally welcome the dsausa and any other parties to set up companies based on their philosophy and show others how things are done. Bring on that 32hour workweek without virtually being on call and somehow make it viable to keep on the worker who tends to be workshy, and the one who tends to make poor decisions, etc. Show me how it's done.
Show HN: JusTab
> “There are very few products that allow you to hand someone cash and be given back time. This will be the Apple Watch metric to track: time saved.”

Except all the other smart watches, including much better designed ones like the Moto 360, released in the past year and a half before Apple got into the market? Pray tell what is the Apple Watch's USP? The iPhone lock-in?

I don't own a smart watch, because honestly the only explanation for them existing is: "it is too much work to take my $500 smartphone out of my pocket." This article is clearly a puff piece, and even its only argument for the device is "time saved" (which I'm guessing refers to that 5-7 sec it takes to get your phone?).

Seriously someone please explain to me why you'd want this $350 brick or even a $250 360? That's half the cost of a smartphone again and only so it can relay events/info from your phone to your wrist?

PS - I loved Wired quoting TechCrunch. That's great "journalism" right there.
"Owning" a puppy is slavery.
"Fast-forward 77 years and we are still appalled by capital’s insistence on limiting the free time of workers"

WTF does this even mean? Are they lumping all 'business endeavours' into one personified beast that has desires, and is in oppositon to the very parts which make up the whole?

If I tell a worker: "Ill give you $300 to update this website" and he does a good job, and then I say: "I will give you $2000/week if you can keep the updates coming" isn't he free to say 'No'?

Work can't limit your free time, you ALWAYS have the power to pick who you sell your time to, how on earth could a business ever limit the time you don't sell to them?
Yes. In C, conversion between object pointer types requires a cast, but conversion from void pointer to object pointer does not; in C++, both conversions require a cast.

Conversion from void pointer to object pointer would be very a bit annoying to warn about in general, as it's so commonly used in C. And if you always use casts, that also hide other types of error (see, e.g., http://c-faq.com/malloc/mallocnocast.html).

I'm sure there are compilers (and possibly gcc/clang can do it, too...) that will warn you about this stuff without needing you to switch to C++.
I'm guessing the company in the article that limited bathroom breaks to 6 minutes probably did so not out of desire for control, but because there had been abuse, and so in typical bureaucratic fashion, they made an unreasonable policy.

Corporations in the US are generally not great places to spend the day. That being said, US workers are in my experience, quite often spoiled, self entitled and lazy. So that is two problems, both of which prevent us from realizing maximum benefit as a society.

But I think the big gains for corporations right now may not be in squeezing the last percent from their workforce but in the simple elimination of nonsense work, nonwork, useless meetings, job making, resume padding and all the other counterproductive junk that makes up much of the business day. That's the low hanging fruit right now.
Why is it inaccurate to call it a reference in Java?

You don't dereference a variable in Java to access it, so that would make me think reference, not pointer.
nasty and rude = autistic now?

god help us all.
Legit point.

However I will point out that it hasn't hurt Beats headphones. They are VERY big on celeb' endorsements, but sell tons of different editions/looks. Their brand and ability to sell $14 headphones for $200 hasn't been damaged.
C – Use of Pointer
>the large number of homes which are owned by foreigners and are vacant. I'm not aware of a concrete way of measuring this.

I saw an interview on CBC about this and the person interviewed simply said "Look up." He pointed to row after row of full condominium buildings with only two or three lights on in each building.
"If everyone could live where they wanted to, put their kids through good schools"

In the US, the competition for functioning schools and safe neighborhoods is incredibly high due to the Title IV and Fair Housing laws championed by DSA and their political allies. So you either work your fingers to the bone, or your family will be forced to live in the dangerous part of town.
The problem is that most jobs that require less work pay much less. You might work, say, 30% less, but you earn 60% less, especially when benefits (if you aren't full time you generally don't get them at all) are accounted for.

It doesn't matter if it is possible to make it work, it matters if it is feasible for most people, which it isn't. Don't get sidetracked focusing on outliers.

Source: I haven't had a full-time job in several years and I know I'm an outlier (I also know I may pay a steep price for it in a couple decades).
I have a library which builds on top of O.o [1]. I dig immutability but immutable.js is far from perfect, especially when used from within a strongly typed language:

first.setIn(["foo","val"], 500)

The type checker can not verify that `first.foo.bar` exists and is of type Number!

Avers plays nicely with TypeScript (it's actually written in TS). If I add proper property type annotations to the objects, TypeScript will warn me when I try to access or modify a property which doesn't exist.

It is true that O.o libraries modify the objects in-place. But that's only an issue if you consider those objects the ground source of truth. But there is a different way to look at it: Treat O.o just as a way to observe changes, but then apply them to immutable stores. Something which I may add support for in the future (see [2], "Immutable applyOperation").

Another way to look at it is: When you render the UI with React, you have to pass React the data (stores, objects) as well as a specification how it is allowed to modify the data. Avers sort of combines the two so you only have to pass around one reference which includes both. How you handle the changes (whether by mutating the objects in-place or applying them to immutable stores) is up to you.

[1]: https://github.com/wereHamster/avers
[2]: https://caurea.org/2015/02/08/the-future-of-avers.html
[Ignoring that the methodology can be completely flawed ...]

It's difficult to estimate the errors without finding the complete dataset and being a statistician, but let's try anyway.

We can look at the lower curves and assume that they are wavy because of some noise error. The curves of the VB and Python (and close languages) go up and down between .5% and 1%, and that value is similar to the monthly change.

So my guess is that the noise for the languages in the lower part of the graph is close to 1%. Then a variation of .2% of Perl is not meaningful. Don't get too happy now, and if next month it goes down .3% don't get sad.
Yes. If everyone had the privilege to laze around like I do, I can guarantee there would be more startups / art / culture.
I think that the difference is in the eye of the beholder.

Case in point: When the Conservative movement announced a few years ago that homosexuality is OK, and that it's even fine to have same-sex weddings, they needed to confront the fact that Leviticus explicitly outlaws homosexual relations.

The Conservative movement gave all sorts of explanations, and basically said they were bending the rules. Their rabbinical schools currently accept gay and lesbian students.

The Orthodox (stricter) world largely said that they had broken the law beyond all recognition, and that this demonstrated that the Conservative movement doesn't take Jewish law seriously.

Many rule-bending aspects of Jewish law, even when approved by top rabbis, have been called rule-breaking by opponents.
Final is a useful keyword -- a way to make the compiler flag up risky code. :)

The problem (the rest of the time), though, is that if you're writing object-oriented code, some values are simply null. Some data points are unknown, or some properties won't have values for some instances.

If you create an new object but it hasn't been persisted yet, it has a null ID.

If you're working with Categories (of something), some may have a parentCategory and some may not (null).

You can set a placeholder of some kind -- e.g., "-1" means no ID, NO_PARENT is a special Category to return from getParentCategory() if there's no parent, etc.. But then you still need extra code to handle these not-actually-valid values, and when your code is bad, instead of fast-failing with a NullPointerException... things will work, but weirdly. You'll get more confusing errors, further away from the actual bad code.

The Apache Commons way to deal with null is something of a hack, but it works -- library methods for common actions with built-in null handling.

E.g., StringUtils.isBlank(s) is true if s is null, or empty, or only whitespace.

ObjectUtils.isEquals(o1, o2) is true if both are null, false if only one is null, or true if o1.equals(o2).

CollectionUtils.isEmpty(c) returns true if the collection is null, or empty.

I haven't much explored other OO-based approaches to null that are less annoying than Java's handling -- so I'm always curious to hear about smarter approaches.
Doesn't matter. A watch you get upgraded every year? It's not a watch - it's not a complete item any more. Rolex's retain their value, in part, because the complete item stays in service - thus the history of the device is maintained.
I recently read the re-frame ~manifesto~README[1] which is a compelling write up about that concept. Could you share some others initiatives in this vein?

[1]https://github.com/Day8/re-frame
I think the big assumption I was making, and probably should have said is that you have complete control over your own internal schema. The sort of control that allows you to modify that internal schema to incorporate a new vendor's schema regardless if it is more or less complex. If you don't have that control then yes it is a very difficult problem.
Would being a sex addict be punishable in court? I mean is it in any way illegal?
Firejail Linux Capabilities Guide
Wow. This is the equivalent of three Rudels

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Ulrich_Rudel
I think they're going to get killed on the luxury end. People buy Rolex and Hermes and Vuitton to get exquisitely made and differentiated items that act as status markers. The prices are out of all proportion to the utility of the items, and everyone knows the margins in those prices are enormous, but there is at least some story of manufacture and design behind that price.

Apple's "story" for a $17,000 watch is, that's how we priced it. It's an arbitrary decision without any plausible claim behind it. Any one buying one of these things is marked, not as a person of taste and means, but a sucker.

Apple, of course, claims industry-leading margins on its products because of its brand, and that brand is founded in part on design and appearance. But it's more of a "style" brand than "luxury" -- the items aren't expensive beyond the reach of most people. They can mark an owner's taste, but not, past a certain point, their means.

My fear is that Apple is allowing this luxury approach to taint its whole approach to the watch. Watches are definitely different than other technology, because they're constantly on display, and so many people insist the appearance of the watch fit their overall look. That does require a variety of looks and bands and such. But Apple has decided to position the watch as other watches are positioned -- either high-end luxury items, or more accessible but fashionable brands.

It's a missed opportunity to re-invent the branding and positioning of watches. What if Apple had instead recognized the need for options for the appearance for the watch, but had instead priced them simply on the basis of manufacture and development? The message could have been that next step for technology is to admit enough variety of appearance to blend in with a user's preferred look, without sacrificing the convenience and enablement and cost advantages of technology in the first place. "A watch for the rest of us" could have been a device that left the luxury people behind, stuck with a tradition that did less for them than that of the wider population.

Better still, such an approach could have been a big step against the idea of technology as commoditizing and homogenizing. It would have been an opportunity to look at technology, not as simply utilitarian, but a real opportunity for the expression of personality.

Apple would have been far better off, and far more revolutionary, to quietly say that marking status with contrived pricing for outmoded technology is just silly. Better to mark one's self with one's choices, within ranges available to many, and achieve status by the quality of those choices. They might have created a brand that in ten years made Rolex look ridiculous, and opened some really new approaches to thinking about how technology can interact with fashion.
http://www.html5rocks.com/en/tutorials/es7/observe/
Consider the Odyssey, a classic example of a Greek text.

The Odyssey was codified and passed down through generations in Greece. People write about the Odyssey, but almost no one has writted linear commentaries for it.

Lets compare that to the Talmud. The Mishnah is the core of the Talmud, and it is a collection of oral law written down (in about 200 C.E.) by Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi. Like the Odyssey, it is unchanged and has been transmitted through the generations.

However, its story does not end there. The next generation of Rabbis writes the Gemara. The Gemara is a collections of more oral law from the generation of the Mishnaic Rabbis, along with debate about the laws in the Mishnah, trying to find proofs for laws, trying to deal with problematic laws, clarify vague laws, and so on. The Mishnah and the Gemara make up the Talmud. (Note that there are actually two versions of the Talmud, the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmud. They have the same Mishnah but the Gemara is different. The Babylonian Talmud is more complete and therefore more widely studied).

Skipping forward a few years, the Rabbis of the middle ages start to comment on the Talmud. Rashi commented on the entire (Babylonian) Talmud, and so did the Rabbis of his grandchildrens' generation. Meanwhile, other Rabbis, such as Maimonadies (I'm sure I spelled that wrong), were trying to extract the laws from the Talmud (a daunting task because not all discussions were resolved). Even very recently, Rabbi Steinsaltz wrote his commentary on the entire Talmud. The cycle of commentary never ends.
The number of people who don't get it, or don't realize it is different from actual pass-by-reference and that the difference has actual consequences, is reason enough for an article.

In my experience, imprecise semantics and the misunderstandings that arise from them are a/the major cause of error, in both the requirements and implementation domains.