skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I don't think your experiences are that unusual.[edit UNusual]

The paradigm of the present society seems to be ultra-competitive "meritocracy". By that token, it fails to value a substantial portion of its citizens.
Your comment sparked an interesting question in my mind: If some entity is trying to colonize in every direction at near the speed of light what is the expected gap time between the light of the actions reaching us and them reaching and colonizing us?

A partial answer to the Fermi paradox by appeal to the anthropic principle: there is a very small fraction of time between being able to observe an alien species and being consumed by it.
People who had it easy don't have your resilience. You may think it's clichè, but I've seen it again and again: easy life makes for an unhealthily low stress-threshold. On the other hand, your experiences might leverage future feats.
I am pretty sure more than 1/10th of humanity will be super happy to have a life like you (food on table and roof over head).

When you need inspiration look up, when you need gratitude look down.
One of the things I noticed in school and later working is a lot of people excel when the problem is spoon fed to them. When the constraints and and desired answer are very mechanical. As it gets fuzzier, a lot of people even 'smart' people start having real issues. And you see the usual cognitive blockers kick in. 'frustration, fear, anger'

Meaning, the usual academic problem where you are given the inputs, and only the inputs you need, and a desired solution, doesn't actually match up that well with real world problems.

The other thing I've seen is a _lot_ of formally trained engineers are motivated by puzzles. Once they've solved it, all the other things that apply to the real world, like deadlines, shipping projects, making customers happy, and making money for the company are not the least amount interesting to them.
The Wikipedia article links to a few sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conch_Republic
I was one of the interviewees for the study (or at least, I remember ranking those three lists as described in the experimental design).

My impressions were that the results of the algorithm were pretty accurate, but they were not very actionable. Very often, the files identified were ones the team knew to be buggy, but there were good reasons they were buggy, eg. the problem the code was solving was complex, that area of the code was undergoing heavy churn because the problem it solved was a high priority, or the code was ugly but another system was being developed to replace it and it wasn't worth fixing when it was going to be thrown away anyway. In some cases, proposals to fix or refactor the code had been nixed repeatedly by executives.

Basically - not all bugs are created equal. Oftentimes code is buggy because it's important, and the priority is on satisfying user needs rather than fixing bugs.
In the near term, a big worry is corporations optimized by machine learning programs. Classical economics says that corporations exist solely to maximize shareholder value. That's a clear objective function one can give to a machine learning program.

It's already happening. Right now, about $400bn in hedge fund money is run by programs. Once computers are better at that than humans, the companies directed by AIs will get more funding. Investors put their money in winners.
Ahvoda – part-time recruitment
Yep, everything including anonymous functions.
You need to know _why_ humans don't treat each other right.

Human failure doesn't imply machine failure; that's one of the big reasons we use machines. If a human might fail to add 10,000 numbers properly, this certainly doesn't mean that a machine must fail as well.

Some humans can get really good at treating each other right in a 1-on-1 scenario. It's when you scale up to a whole society that things get stupid.
In math, every answer is made by a question. In practical reality, every result is made by clear causes in problems. One problem that we have as human beings is that we cannot see the causes that we keep inside ourselves. That's why it's not easy to recognize what makes the results we get in life. For this reason, a good teacher can be compared to a mirror – they simply show us ourselves, just as we are. Without such a mirror, how could we see ourselves?

That's why, in order to change the kind of results you can get in life, you first of all need to change your problems. Good problems have good results; bad problems have bad results. To change your life into one where you continuously get good results, you need to find out how to formulate problems, and then you need to start making good problems for yourself.

It's not easy, but even though you were born with your existent consciousness, it is certainly possible to change your consciousness so that you can guide your life to a better "destiny". However, in order to do so, you need to obtain an enlightenment (realization), and then you need to study what exists in the reality that you can see through your enlightenment. Be careful of falsehood. No religions have any helpful teachings when it comes to enlightening yourself.
As someone who also came from poverty and dealt with some of these feelings, I found it helped to consider things on a global scale. Just being born in America makes me (and you too?) extremely lucky.

All your limbs work? You can hear and see?

It's all relative. These self-pity parties are generally counterproductive.

No girlfriend by 30 and struggling very hard to get through interviews in an industry in such high demand suggests you may need to spend more energy developing your social skills. That's fine, it's a muscle you flex and develop over time. If you can filter the annoying "bro culture" out of PUA literature (like "The Game" by Neil Strauss) and just focus on the personal development, I'm confident you're going to have an easier time socially. In turn you'll have an easier time in your career.

We play the hand we're dealt and we're only here for a short time (at least until we solve aging). Which leads to my last point. Life purpose. It's much easier going when you have one. Dive deep and discover why you're here, what you can really contribute to humanity. Stay focused.
Ethanol wouldn't work because, it usually has a <1 EROI, and requires way too much land.

Hydrogen might work as way for storing energy; I don't think there are limits on producing Hydrogen, given the energy. I don't know if the Tech is mature enough.

Oil is doomed to run out someday (possibly within this century).
Last universal ancestor
Like, phantomjs?
After exercise, fast food helps you recover just as well as sports supplements
That's actually something I haven't thought about! file an issue?
Hey, I feel the same way sometimes. You're not alone and everyone, I mean EVERYONE feels the same way from time to time.

I guarantee your friends look up to you as "that guy" who pulled himself up by his bootstraps, overcome a lot of obstacles to put himself through college, ground it out through a tough job and then found the courage to go out and get a better one, etc. They probably wish they had your work ethic and grit.

Everyone presents an idealized version of themselves to the world and even, to a lesser extent, their friends and loved ones. See through the facade and be happy with what you have: a lot of people would love to have a college education, a job, money, and friends.

What I do when I get frustrated with the world is to call up good friends and just talk it through with them. They always remind me that no matter how good you think other people have it, that everyone is going through the same shit. It's good to have perspective.
The whole article has been ruined by the green-washing environmentalism of the last paragraph...
I know we have put a lot of thought into the potential behaviour of a single intelligent AI, but I always wonder what would be the consequences of creating several AI whose goals will conflict with each other as much as they do with humanity.

While one competing AI would eventually win out over the others, would it be possible to maintain such a stalemate for a long time?

Also unrelated to the above, do we know at what rate the man hours invested in chip development grows as compared to the processing power of the chips?
I don't really know enough about physics to be able to judge, but what you say is nicely in accordance with my priors. I think we're in agreement here. I wouldn't argue that 3 was the place the argument most likely fails, merely that there is something here that we don't fully understand and which may be rather important -- hence it's reasonable to call it a paradox.
This may sound cynical, but if you see life as a pyramid (inadvisable, btw), most people, including you, are not at the top or the bottom.

There are plenty of people who have a hard time finding a job they like or a partner they like. Your friends are just a small sample of the people of the world. You're lucky that you envy their position, actually. They sound like the kinds of people you can talk to about how to achieve what you want.

Another note: the more you manage to climb the greasy pole, the more it seems insurmountable. I've never met a high achiever who didn't think it was hard getting there.

As for specific things you can do, you need to take on an abundance mentality; there are plenty of both jobs and girls, there's no make-or-break moment with either. Everything flows from there. You have choice.
Running out of Lithium is the least of our problems.
Apple Watch sales in Switzerland to be delayed over 30-year-old trademark
Way too imperative. Tons of undeclared variables. why is 'modo' a macro? Local 'defvar'.

Try to write the code shorter. You should be able to write it in about 50%.

Example, from 6 to 3 lines:

; generate a random list of *max-int* integers
(defun randlist (size)
(let ((lst ()))
(dotimes (i size)
(setf lst (cons (random *max-int*) lst)))
lst))

vs.

(defun random-vector (size)
"generate a random vector of *max-int* integers"
(map-into (make-array size) (lambda () (random *max-int*))))

and

; generate random data
(defun gen (size-string)
(when (null size-string)
(setf size-string "4096"))
(setf size (parse-integer size-string :junk-allowed t))
(unless (numberp size)
(error "size must be a number"))
(defvar buffer (randlist size))
(princ (%octets-to-string (coerce buffer 'vector) *encoding*)))

vs.

(defun generate-random-data (&optional (size 4096))
(when (stringp size)
(setf size (parse-integer size :junk-allowed t))
(check-type size integer))
(%octets-to-string (random-vector size) *encoding*))
Human beings can't even agree on a definition of "treat each other right", let alone actually implement it. What makes you think we can program an AI to do it?
Simply, you are comparing the "behind the scenes" of your life to other peoples "highlights reel". Other people very well may be doing the exact same thing with you in mind. If your life was constantly good, there would be no contrast. Its likely you would not appreciate it. Hardship provides us with that valuable contrast to properly appreciate the good.

Find and do what you love, and the rest will come naturally. Good luck and stay positive, the world is your oister.
Good points, but I'd like to offer some counter arguments to the megascale engineering idea, hopefully without sounding too pedantic.

The need for megascale projects is not as obvious as it's sometimes made out to be. There might well be reasonable limits beyond which the maximizing of habitat space and energy consumption tapers off in utility. Even if our civilization continues on its present course, it's not certain that we will get to the point where we (or some of us) feel the need to change the face of the galaxy. If you go one step down from the galactic stage, the detectability of solar system-scale megatech is also open to debate, especially as you move beyond a couple hundred light years from here.

You're right of course when you say all it takes is one civilization (or even one member of a sufficiently advanced society) to undertake projects that are liable to make all kinds of strange phenomena appear in our night sky. But the number if beings capable of doing so on a whim, multiplied by the chance they'd be interested in such things, might be very very small without breaking any of our current expectations about biology and physics.

Finally, I'd like to address the simulation argument. There are two extreme ends of the simulation scenario spectrum.

At the one extreme, we're talking about an artificial reality made especially for us, humans. This would be the popular "Matrix"-style simulation. No scientific argument I've heard so far makes it a convincing model for the reality we live in, except as a possible explanation for the Fermi paradox.

At the other end of the spectrum, we have a full simulated universe. It's hard to argue for or against that notion, simply because either way it fits with our observable reality. The catch is of course that it's a neutral proposition with no impact on us at all. This variant does not offer any explanation for the Fermi paradox.

As I see it, the simulation argument as pertinent to the Fermi problem offers two options, neither of which are intellectually appealing: one is a borderline-untenable just-so make-believe world where all rules are an illusion and anything can happen, and the other one is virtually undistinguishable from our "normal" world, up to and including an absence of any obvious explanation for the Fermi paradox.
> Just being born in America makes me (and you too?) extremely lucky

Author is not a native English speaker. Sticking my neck out: Eastern European or Indian?
I've had some of the issues you've mentioned though I especially identify with the feeling that those I know have it much easier than I do. Due to the nature of things, it's obviously impossible to (really) know what other people go through mentally and emotionally but, in the least, I feel like the notion of talking about one's problems is a no-no. People don't seem to want to show the dents in their armor, and this makes it seem like everything is going fine with them. On the other hand, I have no issues talking about my problems when I need to or feel like it, but it's usually met with silence.

I can say this: most people I know have never been poor, and this is a large part of why they cannot identify with problems I have. Being poor is a life-changer in so many ways and it has so many secondary and tertiary effects that others just don't get it cause they haven't been there.

Try writing down the life you want, then break down the steps it would take to get there (or get somewhat close to where you can be satisfied), then ask yourself if you really want to be twice your age and still lamenting about all the same things. It may light a fire under you or, in the least, alter your perspective going forward.
It's probably not helpful to point to, eg, waste pickers in Brazil or India and say "See, you don't have it so bad". While true it doesn't help people fix their views.

http://www.reuters.com/news/picture/2014/11/19/garbage-picke...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1268204/

http://wiego.org/informal-economy/occupational-groups/waste-...
I think it will always appear that other people are better off. No one likes to share their struggles. Everyone tries to put their best foot forward if they can. That's why you shouldn't compare yourself to others. You never know how that person got to where they are know. Yes, some people have it easy or it came naturally; while others worked/struggled to get there.

Honestly, I have some of the same struggles as you. Work hard and you can fix most of problems. It takes time. Learn from your past.

Start with a couple of goals for the year. Like become more financially stable, make friends/find a girlfriend, or find a new hobby. If you're out of shape try to get in shape. Those things will give you boost. Think about what's important to you right now and prioritize that. Everyone moves at different paces; there aren't any hard rules for life.
The downvotes to this comment seem like they're coming from people who don't want their substance of choice being questioned, which is a classic behavior of someone with a substance abuse problem.
This is an incredibly important point. I have seen many extremely successful people with easy lives crumble when confronted with failure / hardship. Easy success also makes people complacent and lazy.

The ability to strive through hardship is an undervalued skill which will pay huge dividends in the future.
There are many complex factors contributing to your perceived socio-economic well being or lack there of, I don't have all the answers. I do have some advice though, stop running a pity party, I have fallen into this trap myself in the past. Here is some perspective, every 10 seconds a child dies from malnourishment. Moving forward there are beacons of hope, knowledge is becoming open, accessible and free for almost everyone instead of being sold as a commodity and I can't imagine fiat currency surviving the decade...I mean come on people lol(economics is pseudo-science)
couldn’t USB use a GSM-like model instead? with specific timeslots?
I think you can find this in About this Mac.
Ask HN: Do you make money from newsletters?
Hi all - I wondered whether anyone on HN might make a reasonable secondary (or primary) income through newsletters?

Have you managed to distil any principles for getting started, growing your audience, and converting your subscribers?
I've read Christopher Alexander (related: A Second Modernism - MIT, Architecture, and the 'Techno-Social' Movement). While I like his work and agree that he has had far-reaching influence on today's world, his architecture is not something most people are familiar with outside of the Pattern Language fanboyism that sprouted– which he himself has denounced (ref. Notes On the Synthesis of Form, 2nd ed. preface). Where we seem to disagree is that modern architecture, to the best of my observation as an architect and traveler, has far exceeded niche interest. Rather, it has been so influential that the real niche is those who actively fight it. Note that this is not the same group as those who ignore modernism (vernacular builders, non-design architects, and others). Among those who presume design to be the foremost issue in architecture, the influence of modernism is still quite strong. Even among my non-design-interested peers, "sexy" is always somewhere between Bauhaus and California Modern. (Though I secretly suspect that they'd be the ones bringing the postmodernism, maybe a fancy glass house bachelor pad with marble Corinthian columns at the head of the bed or something crazy like that.)

I also don't think that the laziness you describe is limited to modern architecture. Plenty of modern movements have hinged on the idea that earlier styles were lazy recapitulations of styles which to varying degrees were meant to cost less and look either familiar (popular) or expensive. They may be right, but then they are stretched thin by a long line of enthusiastic practitioners eager to make a name themselves. That's nothing unique to architecture, and as broad as my interests are there are plenty of structures from the classical to the contemporary that range fall over the map in terms of intrigue and beauty.

That's as far as I can stretch my attention for now. Hail Antoní! https://bjornandannette.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/wp-barce...
Yes you've struggled to get to where you are but you've made it this far. And well done! Quite frankly quite a few people in your situation might have given up already but you keep on moving forward. And that's a good thing. Look back on your achievements and be proud of yourself. Look forward to your next goal(s) and keep on fighting.

For inspiration you can read this article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/25/successful-people-o... and know that you're not alone in "the struggle".

Bon courage mon ami.
California is pumping water that fell to Earth 20,000 years ago
The original plan, as I recall, was to move everyone to the Parrot VM, such that there would be a Perl 5 compiler, a Perl 6 compiler, a your-language-here compiler, and everyone would be able to share code in an environment that was similar to the JVM but friendlier to dynamic languages.

So Perl 5 was never going to go away like Perl 4 had, it was just going to become one element of a broader ecosystem.
Maybe there's a lot of lower hanging fruits in the galaxy energy-wise than building Dyson shperes.
I can warmly recommend Mermaid [http://knsv.github.io/mermaid/]. Extremely straightforward syntax that's readable in plaintext.

Output is also super simple with no frills - even though the website doesn't sell that very well.
If you have a roof over your head, 3 meals a day and a family, You are already doing better that 60-70% people in the world. Be thankful for what you already have. I would like to recommend this article to you: http://johnnybtruant.com/the-universe-doesnt-give-a-flying-f... . Read A LOT. If you want success, read a LOT of books and articles that talk about success. Your situation will change surely.

Btw, I would like to redirect you to your original post. You are only talking about the things that you do not like. Starting focusing on things that you do like and your life will take that direction. :)
For basically every piece of software I work on this would have horrible security implications. Let me spell it out in black and white: every time someone does a deployment, by default it will download code from the internet and incorporate it into production code. All one would need do is subvert one external code provider and they'd have the ability to inject code into countless production systems at will. How much do you trust github or bitbucket? Would you give them the keys to your business, and your customer accounts?
"startcom: Unfortunately there was a major outage yesterday evening which resulted in a technical issue and the OCSP responders failed to update correctly - they are syncing again and this issue should be resolved by now. Apology for the inconvenience and happy holidays." (page 6)
> Also: Everyone should know this.

Hm, OK...then why didn't you include that info in the article?
Somewhere right now exists a person that has put in the least amount of effort and got out the maximum return.

Whether it's a dollar spent on a lottery ticket that yielded millions of dollars, or it's one resume that got noticed by the right person, or it's one hello that led to a storybook romance.

You, in comparison, will have it hard.

Likewise, a billion people right now wake up with no electricity, no water, no food. Or they have some, but not enough. Or they have enough but the amount of manual labor and effort they put in to getting said resources takes a lot.

Whether it's trading their health, their dignity, or their honor for said resources.

You, in comparison, have it better and easier.

You are in the middle of this game that's lasted for the entirety of humanity.

The game is also built upon perception and presentation. Meaning many others purposely spend themselves dedicated to presenting themselves to others as successful and happy while hiding the ugliness. It's conditioned into us from parenting, schooling, and advertising.

Any deviance is seen as something to run away from. Any failure seen as bad. Hard work and struggling itself isn't valuable, success from hard work and struggling is lauded.

Your choices are to focus harder and harder on what you don't have or to focus on adding to your life. One good strategy for adding to your life is helping others with no expectations. Detachment from expectations is most important, as that's what causes suffering when your expectations and reality do not match up.

The choice is yours.
Support for clients are definitely coming, JavaScriptCore and Node would be awesome, but one step at a time, trying to support multiple protocols before 1.0 could become overwhelming very quickly.