skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Eh. Not really. If you're a company and you've hit an employee's baseline salary for what they need to make (YMMV) there are other things you need to do differently in order to attract and retain great people.

For me there are just some jobs out there that I would never do. Unless you're paying me seven figures there's no way I'd ever work for Facebook, or Google, or pretty much any Silicon Valley company. Those places would have to drastically change how they operate in order for me to consider working there.

A place like Buffer seems nice and I'm sure it's a great place for people to work but the product is just boring to me. They're not working on anything that I personally feel strongly about.

In short: It's way more than salary.
This is a transparent ad hominem attack, slandering the author as racist for the sole purpose to reduce his credibility, with the goal of shutting down a rational conversation on racism.

I was at first attempted to call your statement hyperbole. But then I realized that's exactly the insidiousness of white privilege that I cut you some slack by thinking you're just being silly.
Most style guides say to use namespaces for everything. I've never used them. What do I have to be worried about?
Some amazing progress is being made in the field of program synthesis. In particular, there have been a lot of successes in generating programs from input/output examples, provided the domain is sufficiently restrictive and/or the programmer provides a "sketch" or partial program to start off the synthesizer with. One good paper to start looking at is: Oracle guided program synthesis, Jha and others ICSE'10. This algorithm has made its way into Microsoft Excel: http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/news/features/flashfill-....

You might argue this isn't "true" program synthesis, but in some cases it can outdo human programs, because the synthesizer can be tied into a verifier to produce only "correct" programs, where correctness is defined by a few simple and declarative properties. One example of this sort of thing is from Udupa and colleagues in PLDI'13: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=2462156.2462174. They're able to generate correct cache coherence protocols from a partial specification and input/output examples. This is a big improvement over the current state of the art, where a lot of very smart people think really hard and come up with a coherence protocol, convince themselves it's correct, and then some other very smart people spend a few months playing with automated verifiers trying to prove the protocol correct, and finally someone actually implements the protocol in hardware, and you might still run into bugs at this stage.
Yep!

Some companies try to prohibit their employees from discussing compensation, precisely because they see the benefit of keeping people in the dark about each others' salaries, benefits, etc.

This practice is actually illegal, but it's also mostly unnecessary, because so many people have internalized the idea that such things are Not To Be Spoken Of anyway.
Great guide. I'd suggesting adding a bit more about the "why?" if the goal is compliance. In some cases, there are performance benefits to the stated approach (like not deeply nesting classes or avoiding tag based selectors) but some readers may not be aware of this and may assume that it's entirely a style based preference which is easier to ignore due to personal preference.
Where You Should Travel in Summer 2015
This is one of the reasons I went with a Subaru WRX STI - just as fun as the Miata in my opinion, but comfier seats and I can fit a ton of stuff in the hatchback...
Not yet, but I'll spin up an instance in the next day or two and try the New Unreal Tournament and report back.
https://www.unrealtournament.com/
I was going to post that song, but you beat me to it!
Moxie gave a great high-level talk on cryptography and Open Whisper Systems at Webstock this year too, for anyone that's interested: https://vimeo.com/124887048
i have to say i fully agree with your comment - i too thought cooking games were lame as hell but out of boredom, downloaded a few free cooking games on android and now i'm hooked! like you said, end of a busy day, there's something relaxing about playing a game running a busy bakery or restaurant.
Two things that really helped:

1) I signed up for gym classes with a limited (13) number of sessions per month.

This forces me to go 13 times a month. If I don't go, I'll be wasting money and psychologically I don't like knowing that I just threw away money. That's worked for me better than signing up for unlimited and never end up going since I would mentally think, "oh I could go tomorrow I've got infinite gym sessions."

2) I stopped eating out every day and cooked for myself. I learned how to butcher a whole chicken to save on money.

I've lost about 15% of my weight over 14 months. My clothes are all baggy now but that's a different set of problems.
Harbingers of failure
It's bad if it's susceptible to running an attacker's arbitrary code.
It's interesting to compare the single data point in this article to a more global measure: [1]

"Tesla Motors Inc. drivers were more likely than Porsche owners -- or anyone else -- to say they’d buy their cars again in this year’s edition of the closely-watched Consumer Reports buyer survey.

"Tesla’s Model S luxury electric sedan topped the U.S. survey a second year in a row, scoring 98 out of a possible 100. The No. 2 brand, Porsche, scored an average of 87 out of 100 across its model lines."

1: http://www.autonews.com/article/20141203/RETAIL03/141209918/...
I'm just starting with Buffer as a Product Creator. I gave this a bit of thought at first and it did indeed make me nervous.

Now, however, it's completely freeing to have it out there and have one less thing bottled up that I can't talk about.

Finances are a funny thing in the US; money is completely taboo to talk about, but why? Does it really matter that your friends/family know how much you make? Maybe it does and that might keep you from working with a company like Buffer, which is just fine. In that case it might not be a culture fit and you should probably pursue working with a company with a little less transparency.

The openness and transparency is what most drew me to work at Buffer. They don't compartmentalize and that's a great thing. Transparency extends to all corners of the company. Some places say they stand for something but then you find out there are boundaries. Not the case here. :-)

Justin, new Product Creator with Buffer
Most likely because they allow you to work remotely from anywhere in the world.
Eh. Small fish eat other small fish. Sometimes they mutually eat each other, to abuse the metaphor.
What is there to explain? The sun shines, water flows, and racists make prejudicial statements.
What size is the tank on an Audi RS6 ? An owner may not be too bothered about the cost of fuel but how often do they have to stop compared to the Tesla.

I remember reading a report of a fast road trip on a superbike, the author had to stop every 30 minutes to fill up.
Culture - I find the engineering culture great, lots and lots of trust, everyone deploys at all times throughout the day, freedom to experiment with new technologies. No one points fingers and the team is all in it together. Non-engineering wise, there is a ton of respect for each other on the team, it's a super positive place to work.

The people - you'd have to get to know them, they're awesome bunch :)

Our values - here's the easiest way to show them: http://www.slideshare.net/Bufferapp/buffer-culture-05

I hope that helps a bit!
Yeah, I know. I'd still rather have a demo. I don't like the idea of using my credit card as a means to demo a game I might be interested in. If a game I wanted doesn't meet my expectations after purchase, then that's a different matter.
The thing is, you end up depending on algorithmic complexity whether or not it's guaranteed. There's simply no way around it. If this API changed to an exponential or factorial running time, almost all users of it would be completely broken. Since the running time isn't guaranteed then it hasn't technically broken any API contract, but pretty much the only way not to be broken by this change is not to use the API.

That means that if there's no explicit running time guarantee given, your alternatives are to either not use that API at all, or depend on the running time you can observe or guess at.

Since people write APIs to be used, the former is obviously not what's intended. So it's pretty reasonable to consider any API without an explicit running time guarantee to have an implicit one along the lines of "this won't get vastly worse" because your only other choice is not to use it at all.
Actually valid issues with mainstream evolutionary theories taught in schools
Yeah, seriously. Native midwesterners (I grew up in central Illinois, in a nasty tornado alley) take tornadoes seriously. They were new on campus, or they'd know that the dorms they walked out of to go see the tornado were built because the previous dorms had been destroyed by a tornado.
Japan’s New Satellite Captures an Image of Earth Every 10 Minutes
He grew up in the Midwest. http://www.idlewords.com/2002/10/high_school_reunion.htm
At some point it does start to feel like the focus on tools is disproportionate. Have we begun shuffling around the gadgets in our toolbox to distract ourselves from the difficult problems we need to solve? Sometimes I think so. Have we developed an expectation that our toolset should eventually become so perfect we just stack it up and the job is done? Sometimes I think so.

Better tools improve our lives, but better tools should not be the primary focus of average developers. If too much of the labor force becomes obsessed with creating tools, there won't be enough of us left to build great things with them. If we spend too much of our time testing new tools, our innovation will end with tools.

Creating great things takes mastery. Mastery requires a foundation. If we aren't careful, we may soon become masters of rejiggering our stack with no idea what to do once it's complete. If that becomes the dominant habit of our industry, we'll be in trouble.
Hope their equity pays off because those salaries are shit for SF. For that matter, they're shit for Dallas.
Government worker salaries are not usual directly associated with the names of the people receiving them; the classifications are public, but you can't just type in "my neighbor salary" in Google and see what they make; you don't know what classification most government workers hold. Elected officials are the common exception to this, since we know senators make $x and we know all 100 people that are currently senators, we can look up the salary for the mayor and associate it with the mayor of the city, etc. Even then the published salaries should be seen as a baseline, since many public personas have multiple streams of income.
Nitpick two, codons don't encode for proteins but rather components of proteins (amino acids) that the RNA/ribosome "interprets".

At least that's what my high school bio taught me.
I assure you, my question is sincere and I don't appreciate being dismissed like that.

From the article:

the Tesla predicts 40 minutes of charging is required to
juice the battery to its 230-mile-ish “daily limit”—and no
meal coinciding with the stop, I’m left to pace around an
empty Hobby Lobby parking lot.

I can't say either way, but that doesn't sound near an interstate exit with places to eat (but I'll grant that enthusiast press often embellishes for effect, could have been right next to a Waffle House). Compared with a gas station, an empty parking lot seems to be a riskier place to be waiting around.
If you're looking for a networked library, Subsonic [1] is a bit more complicated, and a bit uglier, but has the amazing feature of being able to play your music from anywhere, any device, by anyone you allow.

[1] http://www.subsonic.org/pages/index.jsp
If you're going to display how many comments there are on an item, please make that linked to the actual comments so I can read them. Besides that, it looks nice! Good luck with it.
I'll reveal myself as one, having bought in the 80's an Atari ST, but my Amiga companions would also fall into this category. Heck for much of its early history Mac users could be called harbingers of failure, until the advent of the iPod (I bet against it) when Apple's fortunes flipped.
That would be great. I might try it myself, too. Currently, I'm gaming on a MacBook Air 2013. Works alright, but I play Heroes of the Storm on low settings and it could indeed be a bit nicer :)
The U.S.A government is known to fund and train terrorist groups. There isn't exactly a shortage of CIA-funded/CIA-trained terrorists out there.

I don't put it outside the realm of possibility. There is a lot of motivation to invading Iran/Iraq under a guise and what better way to usher in a surveillance state than "preventing terrorism and keeping you safe"?

People in power have a lot of motivation to remain in power. That includes keeping "the masses" ignorant and satisfied with their lives. Satisfied people don't rebel or overthrow systems of power that appear to be working in their favor.

After hundreds of years of history repeating itself with same/similar stories over different time periods. I find myself thinking people are completely ignorant of history when they full trust their own government at its word. I will always entertain the possibility my government did something bad. Because history proves that it isn't all that unlikely...

Now entertaining the possibility of and actually believing it occurred are two different things. I cannot disprove 9/11 being an inside job - and I can see motivations as to why a government may do it (if I didn't see why a government would, I wouldn't entertain the thought). The fact that, as an individual, I can see motivation for a government to commit an act against its own people means the government itself might reach this same conclusion. So the idea is possible.

Do I think it was? No. I think it was simply government negligence. Failing to respond to warnings we received from Russia (2001 wasn't much past the 90's) and general disorganization.
> Where I believe skeptics get into trouble is when they move beyond questioning to actually posing an alternative story that is no more provable than the official one.

Those are not skeptical. They are believers, just like the people that believe on the official version.
Oh I read it as very meta satire. That is, it sounds exactly like what a stereotypical midwesterner who moved to SV and is trying to distance himself from that place would write about his trip back to ingratiate himself with his new cohort.

His wit runs to just this sort of joke so I assumed that it was intentional. Even if it wasn't, still funny.
Not ridiculous at all. Seems like a nice logical step from the failed business attempt of ...forgot the name but the company that provided streaming service but had lock-in of games on their platform.
No I mean, factually, it's reverse-racism. It's not an opinion, the author talks about racial issues and then makes prejudicial statements about all white people:

> And White people, every single one of you, are complicit in this racism because you benefit directly from it.

> every single one of you

> complicit in this racism

What else is this suppose to say besides, "all white people are racists"?

Why is that okay for a black person who identifies as "Black" not black as a descriptor of skin color but Black as a part of community, a culture, not an individual, to say that all, that's all as in every man, woman, and child as a White person, not an individual, but all White people as a part of the white community, are racists?

Why is this okay? What does this accomplish? What is the end goal of this conversation the author intends to have with his audience really about?

If a message is conveyed here to the White audience, what are white individuals, and White people collectively suppose to do about it? Is the article just about saying White people are racist and that's it, rant over, end of story?

What is the solution?

> [...] it’s getting harder and harder for me to think about the protection of White people’s feelings when White people don’t seem to care at all about the loss of so many Black lives

What? Are you serious?

Lets repeat that back:

> White people don’t seem to care at all about the loss of so many Black lives

Excuse me? Says who?
Has anyone thought of selling preconfigured cloud gaming services?
OpenCV-Based iOS Application for Detecting Objects in Images – Toptal
The necessary element is not what you call it, but rather that the event is presumed to be evidence that the implied compact between government and the governed had been violated in some way by the government.

Loyalty and support in exchange for protection. Scholarship and industriousness in exchange for liberty. Moral behavior in exchange for justice. Voluntary taxation in exchange for uniform public benefits.

You need not show that the government was directly involved, if you can support the assertion that the government did not effectively use its granted authority for the benefit of the public. Conspiracy theories are primarily useful for convincing those people who demonstrate too much faith in their public institutions that they should be a bit more skeptical.

Whether you think that 9/11 was the work of Al Qaeda terrorists or CIA terrorists, the facts remain that the efforts of the government were ineffective to prevent the deaths, injuries, or destruction of property, and the resulting public grief and outcry was used inappropriately to justify almost entirely unrelated shifts in policy.

The idea that someone, somewhere might have said, "That many deaths? Hooray! We can go have a war now!" is just grossly abhorrent to me, and I can't shake the feeling that it actually happened.
Additionally: https://mkaz.com/2012/10/10/python-string-format/
"an employee could look at that formula after a year and think, "Well, I know where I am now and where I could be in two years, no reason to stay here for that.""

The good part about this is that the formula and system is open to change and will continue to evolve as we find ways that it could be working better for us. We're actually in the midst of some changes right now that have and will really help the formula work in the coming months & years.
The Future Doesn't Work: The Utopian ideal may be a 21st century nightmare
Maybe I'm not thinking about it long or hard enough, but this article just seems kind of wrong.

Acquisition events are way more common than small-company-eats-big-company events. It's literally logically impossible for small fish to always eat big fish, because there would then never be any big fish to start with, all fish would work out to the same size +/- one fish.

[EDIT] - After reading some more of the article it's just the title that is linkbaity/exaggerated... I made too cursory an evaluation
"They can be interesting to think about, but without any evidence for them there isn't any reason to give them particular consideration. (I am including rational, mathematical, or logical arguments based on experimental evidence as evidence here)"

I'm glad we're discussing this because you're an example of the kind of thinking that is a mystery to me.

The fact that I have qualia when looking at, for example, the color yellow, is directly knowable by means of just a little introspection. This is not "rational, mathematical, or logical" or based on "experimental evidence". It is simply direct observation. Observation is where the scientific processes you name start. Observation does not depend on those processes. They depend on it and build from it. Observations are the most fundamental thing.

From the direct observation of your experience of yellowness, which I think you must agree is something more than merely classifying the wavelength as being in a certain range, I would think you would know that qualia exist. That is enough evidence.

"How do we decide what the actual answer is? Science and materialism have repeatedly produced predictions that pan out in experiments. Theories of souls and sprituality have repeatedly had to retreat from testable predictions."

So, let's not have a theory of souls or spirituality at this point. We don't know enough. That doesn't mean that those things don't exist, it only means we don't understand them.

Suppose a cave man-level creature on another planet encounters an iPhone because we somehow send one there. This cave man creature knows how to build fires and has used reasoning to make weapons, etc. In doing those things, he probably tried different ideas about how best to make fires and rejected the ones that didn't work well. In other words, he has a rudimentary understanding of the scientific method.

Now he tries to figure out how an iPhone works. He constructs theories based on what he knows. The theories are all shown, over hundreds of years, to be wrong. Therefore, he is told, iPhones don't exist because when he constructs theories about them, they are wrong.

But he directly observes the existence of the iPhone because he holds it in his hand. He knows they exist. He doesn't need a scientific theory to prove that they exist. Maybe, eventually, he will have a correct scientific theory as to how they work; it will just take more time. Or maybe he never will. Either way, iPhones exist.

Awareness is, in my view, exactly the same, and it is mystifying to me that people such as yourself come to a different conclusion.
If whites are running everything, what policy exists for them to maintain power?

Trying to keep America white by immigration? No
Media favoring white people? No (they called the hispanic George Zimmerman white to further their 'white people are all rascist' narrative')
Passing laws that favor the majority white religion (Christianity)? No
I searched for all the sentences with the word talk:

> Nobody talks to each other so everyone is reinventing the wheel.

> Still, nobody talks about sharing concepts that would definitely improve all of them.

> I will continue to talk to each and everyone about old, new and maybe broken technologies.

> Stop talking about tools, stop being a smart ass about why something should have been done differently.

I really dislike the opening of the last quote, and I think the author would probably rephrase it if he looked at it in this context. I don't want people to stop talking about tools more method, we just shouldn't be jerks about it and we should ask more questions than we prescribe medicine.

As to the other points, I'm not entirely convinced I agree things have gotten worse. I actually see more collaboration than I saw 10 years ago. I think he's confusing the shear volume of open source projects with people not collaborating and communicating. I think it's basically a lot easier for lone coders to publish and share their solutions, so it appears the entire collaborative landscape has changed.