skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I've been following the latest rounds on technical interviews, and I think this post raises an important question. Based on my interview experiences at Amazon Google, and a few other companies that emulate them, I would tend to agree that the interview process places almost no emphasis on certain types of creativity. They really are data structures and algorithms exams. I'd be careful not to claim there is no creativity tested, as I would argue that there is a kind of creativity in figuring out how to find the square sub matrix with the larges sum in an NxN matrix, especially if you haven't seen the problem before. But it is true, the ability to see the value in software and build something interesting and useful with it isn't tested, at all.

This blog post makes another good observation - if there is a limited amount of time and mental space, the two could even start to negatively correlate.

I've been thinking a lot about this in terms of another hobby of mine, music. Think about the difference between a great session musician and a wonderfully creative songwriter. The first can do amazing things musically, but might draw a complete blank on what he or she has written. The second may only be able play the open chords, but write truly wonderful songs.

Google essentially tests you like a session musician. Can you play a B flat diminished scale? Put together a quick 4 bar run. Oh, the singer needs to do this in E, immediately shift to that scale, and do it again. Here's the song, and lyrics, oh, there's this one tricky part, let's go over that, ok, ready to record? Great session musicians really can do those things.

Aside: Now, some might reasonably object, saying I've given an overly rosy view of what a tech test truly is, because those are all things a session musician does in the day to day job. But what tech interviewers really do is interview a bassoon player, grill her on obscure points in jazz theory on paper, allow her to strum on "air guitar" but never actually letting her pick up an instrument, and in the unlikely event she passes, will later place her as an oboe player in an orchestra, figuring, close enough. Plenty of support for that point of view on tech hiring as well.

And truth is, there are people who are interested in great songwriters, thing is, you don't audition for the role. You need to create great songs and get someone's attention. No creative person can be successful just by being creative.

In this sense, I suppose google (along other large tech companies) does value creativity, it does this by finding and purchasing new technology and startups at 100+ times the rate they would have paid in salary.
Can anybody summarize the talk for folks like me who for several reasons cannot watch the video?
Get the GitHub old header by installing this Chrome extension
Sorry about that. Maybe once Apple open-sources Swift :)? I might be able to do something then.
I tried this out a bit ago and removing it was like removing a virus
Oculus scientist wins computer vision award
Apple as a technology company does invest directly in renewable energy, and also medical research. Separately, Apple's money isn't a stack of bills. It is a set of investments managed by Braeburn Capital, which is one of the largest hedge funds in the world, and does invest in all of these industries.

You are simply wrong.
And once everyone is on CC, they have no business reason to keep spending money on improvements.

Historically Adobe hasn't had a lot of competition for much of this software. But they were kept "honest" by the boxed software model, and the fact that they wanted people to re-buy the same software every few years.

If they failed to offer compelling new features, the older Adobe software would just continue to be used indefinitely (and they'd lose income). Same with MS Office (it competes with itself).

Now, with CC, you aren't paying for new versions and instead just paying for "basic" access to their software. So if they just bug fix and don't provide any substantive improvements for ten years, you're still stuck paying them $10/month or whatever. Only actual competition could change this equation, and there isn't much.
Tech companies standing up to government data requests
Ok I added a real XSS filter, lets hope that it holds :)
Canadian Senate Rules in Favor of ‘An Almost Hands-Off Approach’ to Bitcoin
RawTable doesn't have to be because the hash function has already been computed at that point. The actual hash table is.
Love the game (free version) will buy on steam for sure!
> If you have a handful of people, you simply communicate with them, check that there's a good reason to rebase and that you're not creating unnecessary burden and do it when everyone is happy.

Why is that communications overhead worth it, vs simply not rebasing? (or at least not until right before you merge into master and delete the release branch)

I think the communications overhead can be significant, especially if the handful (even just 2 or 3) collaborators are at different locations, organizations, timezones, etc.

I'd rather just not have to think about it, not to have to deal with that communications overhead, and not rebase. What do you get from interim rebasing, anyway, especially if you are still wiling to do a final rebase before merge?
Heinz ketchup bottle QR code leads to porn site
Can't see any of the slides. Maybe some issue related to uBlock but I won't turn it off. Can I see it all in one page?
It's a social question. To be honest, for the vast majority of people i work with (and i've worked with a few: https://github.com/wchristian?tab=repositories ) it would be considered very strange to see feature branches as public and stone-written history. There's a common understanding that feature branches are feature branches because the creator wishes to avoid writing things in stone.

That said, if a team decides on that kind of convention, marking things as WIP is a neat feature. I've seen other people do that simply by creating feature branches as "<username>/feature_branch".
It sounds like a VIEW would handle this restriction also. And then you should be able to use any ORM or lower level of abstraction.
Hosteurope.de shut down our servers due to “political incorrectness”
Golro, Are you related to the famous Golro08? :-)
The question is how polyglots are accounted in this graph?
Thanks for the comment. I agree I sound prejudiced and I'm sorry for that. I'm open to dialoge about this but I agree that my tone isn't helping. Anyway, I love thinking about this topic and I'm open to new insights.
I don't know about the science, nor do I care, I am speaking of my own experiences. Experiences other than "I never felt hungry and I had nothing but energy after a couple of days" are discounted and hidden when speaking about fasting by the people who support it. It has taken a life of its own and spoken as fact. Other experiences need to be heard too and we need to acknowledge there is a wide range of people who have a wide range of experiences and people can have different reactions and that's ok. The ones who don't have such experiences need to be welcomed too.

People do speak a lot of BS when it comes to fasting.

I guess my comment was more of a reaction from being attacked for my experiences fasting, not here but elsewhere. That's why I no longer spend time those places. It did come out wrong in retrospect and reactionary.
“whom”
An actual panic attack is completely and totally devastating. The entire fight/flight system goes haywire, and people think they're about to die. It's even possible to start hallucinating. Lots of sufferers wind up in the ER absolutely convinced they're having a heart attack.

What's worse, this can lead to a whole range of phobias (I'm in the middle of this theater. What if I have an attack? Then you start having one. Now you're afraid of theaters and theater-like spaces).

It can take many, many years for people to learn how to "talk themselves down" out of this (or, more accurately, to endure the onset of one without letting it get full blown). It's not life threatening, but it's a very serious illness indeed.
Nice idea, but I doesn't really do justice to wetting, I think. First of all, water doesn't stick to everything: some materials are hydrophobic, and as Saykally points out, it's that dual ability to attract some parts of molecules and repel others that makes water necessary for life on Earth. That's how cell membranes form spontaneously: long skinny lipid molecules gather into sheets with their hydrophilic ends facing out towards water and their hydrophobic ends facing inward.

Second, all viscous fluids are sticky, in the sense that their flow is slowed where they touch stationary surfaces. This boundary phenomenon is responsible for the Coanda effect. Have you ever touched a spoon to the stream of water coming out of the kitchen tap, and watched the water change course towards the spoon?
Um selling to people who don't work regular hours? There are plenty of people who work hours that are not Monday-Friday 9am-6pm, you know that, right?
The distinction is whether it's a question of freeing it for everyone's control, or merely trading foreign control for their own.

Russia doesn't want GNU, they just want a Russian Microsoft that's in Putin's pocket like everything else.

Take a look at what's happened to VKontakte some time.
What I meant was, I have personal coding projects but I don't have access to the kind of high-performance hardware and expensive 3rd party software that we use and that I have most of my experience with at work.

So while I have experience writing some fun little Android apps and contributing in a small way to some projects here and there outside of my 9-5 working hours, that code is not going to ever be close to what I am actually capable of or am used to writing.
Ownership isn't measured by the ability to do what you want with something. It's the exclusive right to do what you want with something.

Apple's music licenses do not prevent artists or labels from selling their music elsewhere.

What Apple does own is its own platform.
The only solution I can think of is to write a prepare-commit-msg hook that adds a line like "On branch: <branch-name>" to the commit message. So when reading your commit history, every commit that was made on this branch would contain this message. You can also look up just commits made on a particular branch by doing `git log --grep="On branch: <branch-name>"` this way.
What's really awful is that most of the people posting in that thread aren't ever going to use or contribute to Opal, they just want to remove someone who doesn't share their worldview.
Several years ago, Adobe inexplicably took SVG out of the optimization-focused “Save for Web…” modal, requiring users to revert to the existing “Export…” functionality with fewer optimization options.

The reason they gave was, in effect, “well, the internet is faster now, so you don’t need to optimize your SVGs.”
This is a somewhat random note on the subject, but after reading one of the threads yesterday on Stripe, I found myself reading through their list of prohibited businesses/services (it's an interesting read if you're curious about high-fraud/sketchy business models).

And sure enough:

54) human hair, fake hair or hair-extensions

which says a lot about the industry.

(Note in looking this up just now, I found its only in the UK prohibited businesses, not the US list, which is also somewhat interesting)
Exactly. I did a presentation about this for an IT class recently. It's astounding how many 'tip of the iceberg' diagrams are out there, implying that tor is 10 times bigger than the regular internet, and filled with dark and seedy things.

They somehow mix up the Dark Web and Deep Web (which are ill defined terms already) and combine their mythologies into one hilariously incorrect idea that there is a whole underground society 10 times bigger than the regular web.

More hilarious is how many of these charts put 4chan or the Pirate Bay just below the surface, as if they are hard to find sites. These diagrams are incorrect every way you look at them, besides maybe a "the lower you go, I'm implying the sites are less moral".
Ah, there it is. OK, so I'm still confused.

> you can get the same functionality (in a better / more consistent way) using library types

RETURN is a control construct. How do you emulate a control construct using types?
I'd like to complement this comment and suggest that this practice should be applied to links that may be blocked to a grand part of us, people that are behind a firewall.
Which is why you're seeing all of the young, educated, upwardly mobile UK residents itching to move to Moscow. </sarcasm>
On the front lines of humanity’s high-tech, global war on rats
Jerven on Measuring African Poverty and Progress (2013)
Implications of Historical Trends in the Electrical Efficiency of Computing [pdf]
"'lifetime" gives no useful semantic information there. All 'somethings are lifetimes; it would be like naming a type parameter "Type," or a variable "variable." If you don't have a specific shard context that would give the name meaning, `'a` is as good as any. I do agree that something like Key or Value would probably be better than K or V.
>Women are mostly emotion based creatures.

The vast majority of people are emotion based creatures. Logic tends to be used after the fact to justify their emotional stance. Women are socially more allowed to express their emotions, and thus the stereotype that they are more based on emotions arises, but while men express their emotions less due to social pressures, I've seen no evidence they are ruled by their emotions less.
At my last company, that was 60 live feature/bug branches, each having to be built by CI before being mergeable. The feedback loop was huge, and at the end of the day, the quality of the product did not improve over SVN. develop was a shit show and twice a month, master would be as well.

Ultimate they decided to move to team branches, where each team branch was free to operate how they want so long as the team branch itself built successfully before merging into master. I think most teams adopted the more natural-feeling GitHub Flow.

Personally, for me it's not even the god-awful history that makes me despise gitflow, but its reliance on additional tools to effectively manage the process. This should be a huge red flag to anyone seeking to change a process, and it's complained about a lot. Cowokers not knowing what git-flow is doing under the covers is dangerous. I consider myself pretty versatile with git at this point, but I have no idea what the tool does under the covers. I'm sure I could find out; however, when you're handed a piece of software, generally you learn the contract/api it provides, but most of us aren't going to delve into the implementation details.
No, it does not create "consumer confusion". Consumer confusion means consumers might be lead to think Product A, with a far to similar a name to Product B, literally is Product B. It's not at all about relative value comparison like "as good as" or "better than". You can put competitor products' names on your package, in your advertising, to make comparisons. Facebook could make ads selling themselves as "Facebook has 200% more users than G+", and Google cannot make a trademark infringement complaint, because it cannot possibly be interpreted by a "reasonable" consumer to say "Facebook is provided by Google".

There is no way to interpret what was said to say "SteamVR is the same thing as IMAX, from the same people, etc."
Indeed. I'm over these as well as any of the, "Why I quit X technology" or similarly titled essays. Oh and the "Open letter to Big Corp". You're not that important.

I don't really care why you quit using X. I don't need validation from some blog about what technology to use or not use. I can evaluate X technology on my own, thank you.
Please do and please post here when you're done!
I'm not familiar with LLVM enough to be sure I really understand the title (can't access the article at the moment). Basically what that means is that any compiler already using LLVM today would be able to directly target WebAssembly, which would then be executed by capable browser engines, or am I missing/misunderstanding something?
Poland stronk, wykop.pl :)
Old working xss
<>.''"".:/:/,,iframe=iframe=src <iframe src="javascript:window.alert('asd')"/>
I would buy, but Manhattan is expensive as hell and I don't want to live in the Bronx.
A proper large format 15/70 IMAX theater is definitely worth it given you arrive early to get the better seats - especially for 3D films where the 3D glasses tend to make the screen look smaller.

Sadly, the IMAX CEO says screen size does not matter [1] and thus the majority of them are being replaced by smaller digital screens in multiplexes. lfexaminer.com has a great list of IMAX theaters and their formats [2].

[1] http://www.wired.com/2009/05/imax-ceo-screen-size-isnt-every...

[2] http://www.lfexaminer.com/theaUSA.htm
Except that there is vigorous competition in this market. Amazon and Google, Spotify, RDIO are all hailed as innovating on how we buy music. Apple is simply updating its service to respond to consumer demand.
I think those articles are silly. If you ask random people on the street, they usually won't be able to name a lot of scientists. So male and female scientists tend to be forgotten. Also, I'm sure Marie Curie would also be in the list of the unforgotten ones - the research they did was a Google search???

Einstein is famous not only for his physics, but also because of the circumstances, overthrowing the whole established world of physics, all the while not even getting tenure in academia but working in the patent office instead.

Darwin, Newton - sorry, most female scientists are not Darwins or Newtons, and neither are most male scientists.

And a lot of the supposedly forgotten women actually received Nobel prices, had chemical elements named after them, became first female professors in their subject and what not.

Edit: I was too lazy this time, but last time that sort of meme spread through the networks I made the effort to go to Wikipedia. I think I remember Lise Meitner - she is the one who has a chemical element named after her. Hardly "forgotten", only few people get that honor. Apparently the decision was made to leave her out of the Nobel prize to protect her against the Nazis. A decision that led to much debate over the years - but hardly the "she was forgotten and deprived of her achievements because she was a woman" that this feminist narrative wants to make out of it. If you read her Wikipedia page, she received all sorts of honors (I couldn't find the reference to the Nobel/Nazi issue, but I only skimmed it right now).

Maybe Rosalind Franklin wasn't included in the Nobel prize because only living people get the Nobel?
> Why is that communications overhead worth it

Because it pays dividends in the long run.

If a project looks like this: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10190786/Screenshot%2020...

Then hunting bugs becomes very difficult, because you can't simply see behavior change from one commit, it might change in any merge because the behavior of one commit in one branch disagrees with the behavior of another commit in a different branch. Even worse, the behavior might be created from a badly-done conflict resolution in the merge commit, which is REALLY hard to see.

I envy you if you have not yet experienced this pain, but i assure you it is a real problem; and that you're merely exchanging effort now with effort later.
Cool. Bought!
It doesn't have to be capitalized. US law (and probably some other places) requires key parts of a contract to be 'conspicuous' i.e. well read and not missed.

CAPS LOCK NEAR THE BEGINNING OF THE CONTRACT seems to be a convention (in the US) [for making things 'conspicuous'] where something as revolutionary such as bullet points may not be.

This is not global convention (for making things 'conspicuous') and seems peculiar to the US.
Cheers. I had gotten that impression from your other comments. I'm glad to see it affirmed. :)
The point of rebasing for clarity, IMHO, is to take what might be a large, unorganized commit or commits (i.e. the result of a few hours good hacking) and turning it into a coherent story of how that feature is implemented. This means splitting it into commits (which change one thing), giving them good commit messages (describing the one thing and its effects), and putting them in the right order.

Rather than hiding bugs, usually I wind up finding bugs when doing this because teasing apart the different concerns that were developed in parallel in the hacking session (while keeping your codebase compiling/tests running at every step) tends to expose codependence issues that you wouldn't find when everything's there at once.

It's basically a one-person code review. And when you're done you have a coherent story (in commits) which is perfectly suited for other people to review, rather than just a big diff (or smaller messy diffs).

It also lets me commit whenever I want to during development, even if the build is broken. This is useful for finding bugs during development as you'll have more recorded states to, i.e., find the last working state when you screw something up. And in-development commits can be more notes to myself about the current state of development rather than well-reasoned prose about the features contained.

I realize not everyone agrees with it, but I hope I've described some good reasons why I think modifying history (suitably constrained by the don't-do-it-once-you've-given-your-branch-to-the-public rule) is a good thing, not something to be shunned.
And also a higher total page view count.
UrtheCast planning a 16-satellite constellation