skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Here are some things I'd LOVE to see on a job posting, but never have:

1. Interview process MAX 1 afternoon. We commit to AFFIRMATIVELY giving you an accept or reject within 2 weeks.
(in other words, we respect your time)

2. Need to hire for this position by [DATE].
(this is a real job opportunity and we are not just fishing)

3. We're not going to ask you to spend a weekend on a work sample or to write code for us for free.
(again, we respect your time, and potentially your IP agreement with your current employer)

4. To apply, just upload your resume or send us your LinkedIn URL. You don't have to fill out a 500-form field online application.
(see a pattern here?)

5. We offer detailed feedback after unsuccessful interviews.
(we earnestly want you to re-apply later if you're better then)

6. If you're good but not an exact fit, we may suggest to you an alternate role rather than just reject and make you wonder if you should re-apply.
(serious about finding talent rather than filling a specific narrow role)

I'd also love to see the company publish their current employee retention rate for similar roles, but I know that's asking for a lot.

When I already have a job, one of the main reasons I don't apply to other jobs more often, even ones that look very interesting, is that most hiring processes are opaque, endless, and generally painful. If you're not getting enough candidates into the funnel, maybe include something about how painless your particular funnel is.
> “This was classic espionage, just on a scale we’ve never seen before from a traditional adversary,” one senior administration official said. “And it’s not a satisfactory answer to say, ‘We found it and stopped it,’ when we should have seen it coming years ago.”

Doesn't the NSA doesn't operate at such scales? Or is it just that the US doesn't expect adversaries to be as capable?

>[Ms. Archuleta's] performance in classified briefings also frustrated several lawmakers. “I don’t get the sense at all they understand the problem,” said Representative Jim Langevin, a Rhode Island Democrat, who called for Ms. Archuleta’s resignation. “They seem like deer in the headlights.”

They were arguably asking the wrong person. But it is a bad sign if no security experts report to her.

> At the personnel office, a set of new intrusion tools used on the system set off an alarm in March, Ms. Seymour said. The F.B.I. and the United States Computer Emergency Response Team, which works on network intrusions, found evidence that the hackers had obtained the credentials used by people who run the computer systems.

That's standard procedure for the NSA. No surprise there.

> “They are casting a very wide net,” John Hultquist, a senior manager of cyberespionage threat intelligence at iSight Partners, said of the hackers targeting of Americans’ personal data. “We’re in a new space here and we don’t entirely know what they’re trying to do with it.”

They're looking for vulnerabilities. Again, no surprise.

There's also the fact that most hardware comes from China now. As they get up to speed on firmware exploits, the fit will really be hitting the shan.
> I also tend to rely on documentation a lot.

This is the best way to work. I am speaking from my experience. It will keep you on right track to get things done.

> I tend to make a lot of stupid mistakes when I'm speaking English

try to be friends with your class\batch mates. It is far easier than becoming friends with outside people (strangers). Go out on lunch\drinks with them. Slowly your circle with increase and eventually you will see improvement in your communication and socializing skills.
Wikia has a lot of content that is desktop gaming related. Does that skew their figures?
>It's very interesting to me that presenting an incoherent argument, and insisting that anyone who doesn't understand it is ignorant, is a highly successful debating tactic.

This is why an awful lot of economics papers use very complex math. It's a way of intimidating critics.

For many of these papers, while the math is usually not exactly wrong, one quick glance at the unrealistic assumptions at the beginning of the paper is enough to invalidate the entire thing.

Since these papers are often used as a pretext to justify economic policy, this is a not unimportant part of how your wages, spending power and wealth is determined.
Consider the following approach: start with simple problems you know you're good enough to solve, and then send them out of the ballpark -- basically, do such a complete, perfectionist job that you can't help but be impressed with yourself. If a subject is baffling you, consider picking a small area within it and then throwing all your energy at it and killing it dead. Confidence comes with success. Small successes can build up to bigger ones.

Edit: But persevere. It's my experience that it takes at least a year of work for any significant rewiring of personality and attitudes.
> You have an extremely shallow understanding of military history.

Actually I'm a pretty serious amateur historian who has given briefings to some pretty important people in the US on historical topics.

> it was "Blitzkreig" - mobility on a scale never before seen.

Nazi Germany didn't really pioneer much at all with blitzkreig. Industrialized fast movement warfare in the German tradition was developed under von Moltke, who had been a close observer of what Napoleon got right and integrated railroads, telegraph, and decentralized command --

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmuth_von_Moltke_the_Elder

http://www.amazon.com/Moltke-Art-War-Selected-Writings/dp/08...

Of course, the French were very aware of both of those eras, given that Napoleon was dominant until he eventually couldn't stop expanding, and Moltke and Bismarck overran France and proclaimed the German Unification in Versailles. Meanwhile, the maneuvers into France from Belgium just followed von Schleiffen's plans pretty closely with a lot of commitment. The French should have been better prepared, given that they were the ones to declare war.

There were significant changes in hardware, but blitzkreig's strength was not in the hardware, but in the flexible orders style and deep penetration behind enemy lines... which in itself wasn't new and was modeled on Napoleon and adapted by Moltke to industrialization. Rocketry and airplanes saw huge advances, but most of why the Germans were fast was in logistics, communications, and intangibles around Auftragstaktik type stuff --

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission-type_tactics#Origins

> If it were altruistic, you'd see a lot more engagement in Africa.

It's damned if we do, damned if we don't. They tried in Mogadishu, there was no strategic interest there for the US. Serbian campaign was anti-strategic for the US, done for human rights. It's tough. I'm glad I don't have to make foreign policy.

As for counter terrorism and intellectual property, these are again complicated. I don't claim the US is perfect, but I think the US does okay in these areas. I do stand by what I said in that I don't think there's any world hegemon in history as generally benevolent, cooperative, and pro-social as the US has been.
Traditional+vs.+Alternative+Finger+Positioning+|+blog.Mova.Club
It's a nice theory, but I seem to remember ^B being Tmux's escape key because it was developed within a Screen session.
> I also tend to rely on documentation a lot.

I rely heavily on resources like StackOverflow, Google, official docs and Dash.app is a godsend for offline-coding. There are many functions (python) standard library functions that I know by name, but I never remember the call-signatures for. I am always looking things up in documentation.

Things that I use all of the time are ingrained into memory through rote repetition.

That said, the most important thing is knowing what exists. If you don't know that a function or method exists, then you don't know to use it. As long as you know that it exists, you can (usually) easily lookup the documentation for how to use it.

> I freak out when I have to pair program with someone or when someone else is reviewing my code.

I've always hated being in the driver's seat for pair programming. I always feel like I make stupid mistakes and my fingers stumbled over the keys whenever someone is looking over my shoulder (this doesn't just apply to pair programming). I much prefer to just put in my headphones, get into the zone and let the rest of the world melt away as I dive into the problem at hand.

My suggestion here? Let someone else into the driver's seat for pair programming and don't be afraid to ask questions, especially if you consider the other person more skilled than yourself. If the person gets annoyed at your asking questions, then they aren't a very good mentor.
I've used modafinil for personal 96 hour sprints, and while it works, I can't even describe the nightmares I had during the 18 hours I'd then sleep.

Would not use again unless my life depended on it.
- It's amazing that you speak three languages, most English speakers will be in awe of you for that alone. Bear that in mind when you make an error!
- Who cares about syntax errors in code? This is why we build in-line checkers in IDE's. Also syntax errors are easy to find and fix, semantic errors are the killers -> the bloody thing works and then blows up... arrgggh!

Big mantra : don't beat your self up. The rest of the world will do just fine at that job without your help. Also, mostly other people simply are not watching and critiquing you, people who are are either 1. mad, 2. in love with you. Both 1 & 2 mean that this is not an issue.
Here's a version in Haskell implemented using a monadic DSL: http://augustss.blogspot.in/2009/02/more-basic-not-that-anyb...

Also, here's ASM embedded in Haskell: http://wall.org/~lewis/2013/10/15/asm-monad.html
I think this is a wonderful worldview to have :)
To suggest all foreign superpowers have access to the NSA goods because "security is hard", and "Snowden was able to wander through the NSA’s networks with impunity", is a weak conjecture at best.
I guess I'm just still too young, naive, and perhaps stupid, but I disagree with this idea strongly. It certainly is true that most places (in the US at least) treat work like work and not like therapy.

Maybe you're right and work is about work and not therapy, but why not? If anything it seems like it's in the company's best interest to provide therapy if it's needed. They already provide health insurance, and it's well known that people who are happier perform better on the job than people who aren't.
On a related note, Ben Krasnow built a SEM in his garage. Search YouTube for his channel.
Touching videos for Father’s Day
Why not Qt5?
Hey man - don't beat yourself up. I can barely code and still can amaze myself.
I would say just do things that you think you cannot do. And don' think about the outcome. You would find just by taking the initiative you can do anything.
I just want to point out that 'JavaScript the Good Parts' is not a good first book for beginners. David Flanagan's book is a much better book to start off with or Zakas book `Professional JavaScript for Web Developers` is the one I would suggest, then Crockford's book. Nothing trumps practice though,just keep coding and breaking things just to fix them, that, imo is the way to learn anything.
Password Recovery Scam – how to hack a Gmail account
- You're allowed to make mistakes, that's what being a student is all about. If you knew it all already, you wouldn't need to study, right?

- Practice makes perfect. You just gotta keep trying and failing; eventually you'll find you fail less often than you try. Don't avoid trying out of a fear of failing, or you'll end up doing nothing, which is worse than feeling embarrassed.

- Don't feel self-conscious about your English skills. Ultimately it doesn't matter; I've worked with programmers from around the world, often with "quirks" in their written/spoken English skills, and never has it been a barrier to communication. A common understanding of the theoretical CS concepts should help.

- Try mindfulness meditation. Focusing on the present and awareness of the world around you might help direct your focus outwards instead of inwards.
If the equity is liquid once vested (i.e. public company), then "stock I get in the future" is no better a reason to stay than "salary I get in the future". It's identical to normal compensation. If I make M a year and expect N in stock to vest next year, then I could just go out and look for an offer better than M+N.

Options that are not liquid, however are a different kettle of fish. Mentally, I will usually value them at close to zero when comparing with other job offers (because more often then not that's what they'll end up being worth).
What is the relevance of you being a FB stock owner to the rest of your comment?
That's true, but I think of it like this. Computers are much better at processing metadata rather than data - its easy to draw inferences when you press a "like" button or click a link.

With Whatsapp, they have data (text of conversations) and some metadata (who I'm talking to often) but its much harder to draw inferences from that. I don't see any ads, and my behaviour isn't tracked. With Android M, I'll strip it of all extra permissions like location and microphone, further boosting my privacy.

tldr - Its a lot harder to monetise me on Whatsapp.
This may sound weird, but you were probably the one with motivation problems in this scenario, not them.

Don't believe me? They're comfortable and secure. They're happy with their output. They're apparently paid well.

You were unhappy with your situation - you want things to be different than what they are, and it was grating on you (and may or may not have led to burnout from your description), until eventually you left.

I've been in a very similar scenario:

I joined a "corporate" that had been running an Internet site for a decade. They had not built a new system in years, and had a massive monolithic ancient app with hundreds of hardcoded rules for individual accounts, where every change required tons of effort and they maintained a QA team at least the size of the dev team. Very few of the dev team seemed interested in things like learning new technologies, trying out different development methodologies, finding ways to make the system better as opposed to the task list of feature and bug requests. (I'm not even sure it had revision control.)

Short version - I get annoyed quickly at, for example, rules about arriving at 9:00am (my train schedule meant I tended to arrive at 9:10am, or at 8:30am, and I didn't want to hang out at work...). I'm told that even though I'm being productive, I'm setting a bad example, and they don't want others to start doing that. (I'm thinking: "Why don't you just deal with bad performance, whether the person arrives on time or not?", as well as "Yeah, and I leave the office at 6pm, so I'm at the office longer than them!")

Slightly longer version - I work with my manager to get my team (also not happy with the status quo) together in a room somewhat separated from the dev team, and we pump out code for several months a lot happier, until ultimately we all got better offers.

There's a much longer story, but the point is that _I_ was the one unhappy with the situation, and this affected my motivation to the point of the occasional debilitating day of non-productivity. The original employees were happy with their situation, and many probably still work there doing the same job they were doing nearly a decade ago now.
Thanks man, it means alot. We put alot of hours into this and we had to run it by our professor many times so it plays as intuitive as possible. Glad you liked it
How aspartame became legal (2013)
> It actually isn't based on OAuth2.

Well, your spec requires use of the HTTP Bearer token[1], which is described in the Introduction section of RFC 6750 as being:

"This specification defines the use of bearer tokens over HTTP/1.1 [RFC2616] using Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC5246] to access protected resources."

So I hope you can understand my impression.

And there are legitimate criticisms of using Bearer tokens[1]. With the offering you are considering, these are very significant.

FWIW, you may think I'm being adversarial/hyper-critical/a-dick (or any combination therein). I can definitively say that in my mind I am not (in this particular case) _and_ that the questions/statements I've posted on this forum are "kindergarten level with mittens on" compared to what the eCommerce banking community will hit you with.

If, as you said in a separate reply, you have worked in the PCI space for the last decade, then the scrutiny you will be exposed to will not be a surprise.

1 - http://hueniverse.com/2010/09/29/oauth-bearer-tokens-are-a-t...
> My version of literate-programming may have a bit too much possibility of that magic.

To be honest, that was (part of) my initial reaction. But at the same time, playing with noweb, reading a bit of literate C etc -- I think some tooling on the literate side can be good. Sometimes one wishes for too much, and too late realize that the beautiful unique snowflake of a poem one has wrought is, while splendid in its simplicity, as brittle and hard as ice.

It just not something one will be entirely comfortable handing over to someone else to modify -- because even if they could figure out what it did, they'd be hard press to modify it in any meaningful way. Too dense isn't very good either.

Sometimes I think that literate programming and APL stand at opposite corners of some kind of 2d graph of program complexity/simplicity (not necessarily diagonally opposed). I'm not entirely sure what would be in the other corners.

I came across your blog post, and I think we are in agreement on a lot of things:

http://jostylr.tumblr.com/post/83304256984/architectural-fog

But I also think a very real problem with literate programming (to quote Knuth?) is that it demands people to be both good (technical) writers and good programmers. Some are both - more are one or the other.

I think the best way to get a simple, yet featureful literate programming system, is to combine a simple markup language, like RST/Markdown/etc with a language that lends itself to be pulled apart and rearranged. I think something simple, like Smalltalk might be a good candidate.

So far the only real literate programming I do, is with doctests in python -- and to a lesser extent, ipython notebooks.

I remember I looked at Leo: http://leoeditor.com/ -- and have been toying with moving from vim to Emacs+evil partially for the benefit of org-mode -- but these still feel like very heavy solutions to something that I feel should be a rather simple problem. That feeling might be wrong, though.

Another tool I've come across (which might be abandoned, I'm not sure) is: http://pywebtool.sourceforge.net/

Regardless of the state of the tool itself, the page has some interesting points on literate programming.

I must admit, getting something like proper LaTeX typsetting of the code is nice though. I'm still looking for a tool that doesn't botch up the (La)TeX conversion and html+css conversion of simple RST/md-documents -- it seems everyone tries to be way too clever, and bundle the weirdest little themes/template leaving one to pick apart everything just to get some straightforward html/TeX. Not to mention trying to output HTML from (La)TeX.

At least for html output we now have a few half-decent alternatives thanks to everyone writing a static blog engine. And pandoc. Pandoc is great.
""It’s terribly difficult to manage unmotivated people. Make your job easier and don’t."

But it is your job to figure out why you got unmotivated people.

* Is your hiring process borked?

* Is there something wrong inside your organisation that's regularly breaking motivated people?

… and so on …
Yep, it's also great that we can enlist the runtime's help to do the same thing in Java (or any other JVM language) and support use of third-party libraries (the Haskell approach places a pretty severe burden on the code) and make it even more airtight (IIANM you can't prevent unsafePerformIO): We just disable IO by enabling the security manager with a "no-IO" policy[1]. So it's less intrusive, more widely applicable and more airtight than the Haskell approach.

True, the security manager does not limit access to the random-number generator, but this, too, can be done with an extra bit of one-time effort, by injecting a security check into the random number generator's seed generation method (we still want to allow fixed seeds like StdGen).

[1]: Or a finer-grained policy of "no IO except for logging".
I'm not sure if you're already doing this, or if it's relevant to you, but a possible way to improve performance is to allow a "window" of commands that you haven't received an "ok" for. I believe common host software for RepRaps just allows one command at a time. How to define the window correctly depends on how the firmware does the buffering (in terms of bytes, or complete commands, or both).
Read it recently, excellent book. Take the time if you have it.
> Do you know anyone who does that in their test suite? I'd love to chat with them.

I do. Not often, as I don't have a lot of IO in my tests, but I've found the security manager useful for that purpose from time to time. I also use it to help our users enforce global contracts, such as prohibit IO or any blocking code in fork-join computations.
When using Putty to remote into Linux machines this would happen to me ALL OF THE TIME. I'd be happily chugging along, editing some text in vi and my Windows instincts would kick in and I'd hit Ctr-S to save. Everything would freeze and I'd be sitting there wondering what in the hell had happened...

Apparently this is a fairly common problem. Take a look at: https://raam.org/2007/recovering-from-ctrls-in-putty/ The scrollbar should give some indication of how many "Thank You's" this article warranted!
Everyone is different, but I would always take a job posting more seriously if it listed at least a salary _range_. I at least know I'm not wasting my time going thorough the whole process only to learn that the comp package is way below what I would accept. Yea, there's always Glassdoor for that, but I'm not sure how much I trust that site's data.
> Our speech right (...) is expansive and it doesn’t stop at (...) a website’s login page.

You don't have free speech rights in a private venue. If you invite me to dinner at your house and I insult your mother, you have every right to kick me out.
What is the best charitable cause in the world?
I wasn't really defending electronic voting machines. They're notoriously unreliable and as you point out are expensive and need replacement with time.

I was thinking something along the lines of voting online. There is significant research to support the idea that more people vote when it requires less time and effort to do so. Not just research, there are many political parties in America and elsewhere that try to improve their chances at the polls by making it more difficult to vote and keeping turnout low.

Voting online would improve the situation greatly, but it isn't easy to implement. To wit, the problems are

1. How to authenticate a user
2. How to map each voter to a vote, without keeping a record of whom he voted for
3. How to prevent fraudulent votes

I've thought about it but I couldn't come up with a good solutions to these.
Instead of Facebook owing your photos and ID, they now own your phone numbers and your friends phone numbers! Not the best swap. WhatsApp Terms: "In order to prevent and reduce unsolicited spam messages, as well as to improve your in-app experience, WhatsApp uses the phone numbers from your phone's address book." "WhatsApp looks at the phone numbers in your address book, then checks to see which of those numbers are verified in WhatsApp." http://www.whatsapp.com/faq/en/general/20971813