skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Err, I'm missing the point of my own point? You raise an interesting point, but I don't think TDD was what stumped Ron. It's not a simple problem to solve without a lot of thought unless you have the requisite background knowledge like constraint problems. TDD did however have him going round in circles, partly for the reasons you describe.
As in, Google has an entirely internal set of applications that mirror the externally-available ones, including G+, and there is no technical way for you to see it without an employee threatening their LDAP to give it to you.

Given that journalists from Fusion have already started basically harassing Google sources to get them to release it, the chances of this sheet making it out are near zero because there will be additional scrutiny on the logs. (I use the term 'journalist' loosely, because once both Googlers declined an interview the reporters in question decided to awkwardly badger the primary sources[0][1].)

[0]: https://twitter.com/kashhill/status/622136985465950208

[1]: https://twitter.com/coryaltheide/status/622165475502362624
Look for the Forgefile.hsl and .ivk files in the src director. But what I saw didn't convince me there was anything in there that GNU make couldn't do.
Sorry for the late response. HN just sent me notification mail.

The documentation states it as "by default". It's required to change wal settings in config file and write a custom logical decoding output plugin in order to take advantage of that feature.

Currently, PaaS provisers such as RDS and Heroku Postgres don't support and it would not be easy to setup it manually. AFAIK, that feature is intended to be to used for backups.
Well, if it's legitimacy you're after, it's illegal to prevent salary sharing in the US.
(ex googler here who has gotten, given, and approved peer bonuses)

A lot of confusion here is coming from how the peer bonuses are awarded so I'll give a brief explanation. You can nominate someone for any reason you like but you provide a justification, their manager sees it and decides if they should approve it or not (almost all are approved). Now the important point is the rules state you can't receive more than one peer bonus for a single thing that you do.

It's almost surely the case that 1.) her manager knew that and the other manager didn't or 2.) she had so many pending when her manager saw it that they thought to ask someone what the rules were. For #2 imagine you are her manager and you see 20 people queued up nominating the same person for the same thing, you are responsible for enforcing the rules (in this case giving your report Google's money, it's in the manager's best interest to _approve_ it since their report will be happier) so you don't want to make a mistake and ask around, then someone tells you 'sorry one bonus per thing they do' and you have to deny all of the rest.

I couldn't applaud her more for the salary spreadsheet she put together (it took serious courage) and the really healthy dialog that it brought (I was glued to it when it came out), but the peer bonus part of the story is almost surely not malicious on her manager's part and I hope she hears that somehow. It'd be really sad for everyone involved if this is just a misunderstanding (the peer bonus part at least).
Why is it women being socially conditioned?

Maybe men are socially conditioned to seek higher salaries (to support their family).

I suppose working for more than $100k might be a rational decision, but research shows it's probably more trouble than it's worth (if you're only thinking of yourself, and don't have an addiction or a boat).
The unfortunate thing about gmail is its gotten worse than AOL was to deal with on the spam front. I feel like there are historical lessons worth learning regarding where all those @aol.com users went.

1. Everything became "spam"

2. They got to a point where they believed they were the standard

3. Nobody could do anything about it

I can think of many places where this same situation has played out. Its yet to work long term without disastrous results after a reign of technical darkness. That doesn't seem to stop people from thinking it won't happen to them.

Its fine to aggressively fight spam. If you choose to error on the side of false positives then its in your own interest to provide reasonable recourse. If not, you've left a very large gap that somebody else will come in and fill. Just as google did.
Hahah no one would trade on the stock market if you didn't have an idea of the order book, it's essential that pricing is disclosed so that FMV can be reached.

Negotiating your salary with out knowing what everyone else was making is stupid. If you're a star performer the goal is to get everyone making what you're making so you can ask for a raise on top of that. (In companies with huge amounts of cash on hand).
Scott Aaronson directly addresses the integrated information theory of consciousness in his this blog post: http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1799
It seems that this eventually would pave the road to some kind of Gaia theory.
Swap Products Online
I believe you're thinking of "Beamtimes and Lifetimes" - actually, I thoroughly enjoyed that book.
3K is not on the low side, it's at the bottom of the barrel. The project doesn't sound simple at all (on the contrary) and the time frame is short. Is 3K for each OS platform or for all three?

Assuming the latter and assuming you work 5 days a week 8 hours a day for 5 weeks, it amounts to 200 hours. You will be working for 15 pounds an hour.
An astonishing attitude.

Perhaps, if you ever end up managing people, you'll hopefully take a step back and contemplate investigating whether there was, in fact, a valid concern.
Teens Need Digital Skills but They're Not Getting Them
"It's hideous"

I think they look quite nice, much nicer than they do in pics - not as nice as the drop-dead gorgeous i8 though!
How much of this is caused by the absurd economic pressure in the Bay Area?
You don't use centrifuges for anything but refining weapons-grade nuclear fuel. The fact that they have them -- and are allowed to keep them -- flies in the face of any paperwork claiming that it wants to dismantle a nuclear weapons development programme.

I personally have friends living in Iran who tell me that the people of that nation widely believe their government is developing nuclear weapons, and are terrified that this deal will allow them to continue, and I can't say I blame them one bit.

This deal is not going to stop the mullahs from making the bomb. Mark my words.
> If someone came to me and said "I did a self-selecting self-reporting survey of salaries, and it says I'm underpaid", I think I'd be more likely to fire them for incompetence than to give them a raise.

Even if besides them being wrong in this one thing, they would actually be competent and underpaid?

If the answer to the above question is no, why do you even have to elaborate. Then it doesn't actually matter at all if the employee complains rightly or wrongly! I have to conclude the answer has to be yes, then.

It's perfectly understandable that you, as a manager or employer, don't want to pay people for their merit if you don't have to. But it's not something you should be proud of.
You know when you watch movies like Total Recall, or Blade Runner, or play a sci-fi game, and there's that pervasive company that seems bigger than any political super power? That's what I think of when one of the Four Horsemen (especially Google) looks like expanding territory blatantly outside their core offering.

In this case, I'm hoping they're just hiring technical people and not looking at cleaning houses, but it always brings that fictional megacorp to mind and makes me uncomfortable.
This is actually a reasonably-toned article.
Summing up. Haters gonna hate.
Even at "Don´t be evil" GOOGLE.
Maybe we need //Comment comment
There may be other ways to address the problem than banning the weapons entirely. When things are expensive people seem more likely to engage in them out of necessity than convenience. But when things are cheap people become more careless about employing them. While it is desirable that in a situation where you are already fighting a war and have no choice about it you have the best weapons, and the highest chance of victory, it is not necessarily desirable – in terms of thought that is put into employing violence as a tool to resolve a dispute – that before the war you have access to those things.

While it is madness to suggest that in a war people will not use their most effective weaponry, the relative costs of war influence who is going to become your enemy in the first place and the scope of the wars that you will fight. Consequently as the technological disparity increases, and the cost of war against any particular foe decreases, it becomes more important to enforce greater discretion in the use of those weapons by other means - and in some cases it would naturally follow that if you really are enforcing greater discretion in the use of weapons there are some situations in which you do not use them when you otherwise would.

Simply because you have a weapon does not mean you use it in every case.
Shared-nothing message passing is an answer, as used in Erlang, but I seem to recall reading that race and deadlock can still occur, just at a higher level.
Has the author really never heard of group consciousness? This is not a terribly interesting argument, and certainly not one that counters the materialist perspective. It reminds me of a young earth creationist I once heard arguing that since the moon is slowly drifting away from us, then at one time is would have had to be far closer if the Earth were really billions of years old. In his mind that was an unpalatable conclusion, and thus sufficient to close the case. Anyone else would have just nodded his head and said, "yeah, and...?"
Yes, and Ellen responded by banning salary negotiation. Which seems to me like a thinly veiled way of strong arming people into being paid sub par wages for their work.
FWIW after reading this article, and comments here, I decided to check on the gmail account of a small not-for-profit organization I belong to (I'm the unofficial IT guy). I was shocked, there were 4127 spam messages, and just 98 unread items in the inbox. Slogging through the spam I did find some non-spam mail, but altogether that was <1% of the 4127 spam items.

Of course gmail deletes spam more than 30 days old, so how does it happen than an obscure educational non-profit gets over 4000 spam messages a month? Gmail must be a huge spam magnet, but still a mystery how those messages find their way into this spam bucket. (Unless in the past somebody had abused the account and the email address is on a thousand spammers lists...)

In any case hard to be certain what criteria the spam filter uses to declare a piece to be "spam". Not all the misclassified emails were sent from "private" servers, it would be useful if it was more clearly specified.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9899369
You are mistaking the premise. I'm not saying you should not have an idea of what the "market" is paying and ask that from a potential employer. But knowing what the person next to you makes is an entirely different situation. I know there are employees next to me that make more/less than I do. I honestly don't care as long as I feel I'm making a fair salary for the work I perform. You can always get an idea of what the market is paying by talking to fellow employees outside the company or the recruiters that hit you up.
On the other hand, if I was a manager at an established company with thousands of workers, I'd be very wary of "just publishing all salaries publicly" even if I did think they were all fair (which I don't believe it's true for most companies, granted).

For one thing, fairness is subjective. For many, "equal pay for equal work" is fair, but many others believe that seniority, or a better CV, or many others factors should be rewarded differently.

Secondly, there are issues of perception. A worker might think (s)he should be paid more because (s)he always leaves later than his/her colleague, without taking into account that the colleague prefers to take shorter lunches or fewer breaks and leave earlier.
You can explain it to them, but why would they believe you?

It'd be different if a company published the salaries from the start, but switching after growing to a huge size can be very disruptive, and I don't blame managers for avoiding opening that can of worms.

(Again, I don't believe the salaries at Google are perfectly fair, I'm talking about an hypothetical company)
I don't understand: If everyone has a wristband which allows queueing less at each attraction, then the percentage of people in a queue at any given time drops. Therefore Disney would need more attractions, correct?

Apart from that, excellent article retracing the deployment of the Magic Band. Given the title I was also expecting an analysis over a systematic improvement program, but they nailed it at the beginning, saying the Parks division is rather conservative.
Bulgaria to India without taking a plane in 511 days
The real name policy is NOT responsible for the "civilness" on Facebook. The fact you're talking to your friends and there are real consequences for being a asshat troll is what constrains behavior.

The evidence is whoever there is open discussion on a public post, it devolves into worse than reddit. (No comment voting!)

Real names are just a shim to ensure you're not pumping and dumping identities. And it's trivial to violate that too ironically. I don't doubt that only spammers and legit folk are the 95% target of this policy.
> and increased diversity will produce better products and companies

really? do you have proof for that?

I'm all for diversity and everything, but hiring just to fill racial quotas or gender quotas is NOT the solution to building a successful company.
Just because you can't test it doesn't make it worthless. If you haven't read Julian Jaynes, then I think you'll like him.
Right. No nation state in the history of mankind has ever lied. Inconceivable.
Is it necessarily a bad thing if evolution concept can manifest outside its origin field of biology?

I'd like very much to hear someone in technology to evaluate more specific about this paper. As I understand vaguely, they dont offer their method as an explanation of evolution of programming language as is but as if. Which makes me kinda agree with your remark.

However, I really love to hear elaboration.
Remember that even women discriminate against other women, e.g.:

In a randomized double-blind study, science faculty from research-intensive universities rated the application materials of a student — who was randomly assigned either a male or female name — for a laboratory manager position. Faculty participants rated the male applicant as significantly more competent and hireable than the (identical) female applicant. These participants also selected a higher starting salary and offered more career mentoring to the male applicant. The gender of the faculty participants did not affect responses, such that female and male faculty were equally likely to exhibit bias against the female student.

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.full.pdf

I'd say conditioning is more than just a tiny bit.
> Surely whomever you direct the question at will laugh at you and no one would take you seriously.

But, then, do you consider that the entity may actually lie about it? It may be psychopathic enough to say, "I am not conscious, that's ridiculous", and yet be conscious.

Another possibility is that it wouldn't understand words in the way we understand them. Asking a nation state "are you conscious?" may be like asking a child "do you have knee-jerk reflex?". How would you know without prior experience?

However, asking in a different manner, say like in a referendum in Greece, you can get a very emphatic response which hints at consciousness at national level.
Internet sad boy meets Adolf Hitler
> As a normal worker of course I hope they all pay us great salaries and equal pay for equal work but part of my "job" in the negotiating process is to make sure that happens.

So why are you arguing for making your own job harder? In what kind of negotiation does one side insist the other keep all the cards so they can play a shitty hand?

Not a fair one.
It looks like a major part of the problem she had with the PB rejections was some kind of hypocrisy or inconsistency which she attributed to racism, especially with all that Ida B. Wells stuff:

> Meanwhile, one of the other people involved, a white dude (good friend I won't name, he can name himself if he wants), was also getting PBs.

> His weren't getting rejected. I told him mine were. He was pissed. Wanted to tell everyone what was happening. I declined.

Personally I think 7 x $150 is such a trivial amount of money that it was a mistake to say anything about it at all, certainly not worth losing one's job over.
"Artificial"? I didn't realize nature had salaries.
That's fine, and I even agree -- perhaps nobody should venture into the swirling dependencies of doom territory with multi-threaded programming. However, my point is that this type of argument makes it seem as though nobody should attempt the more mundane, turn-the-crank, not-very-hard multi-threaded programming either, which is a bad attitude to perpetuate.
Present problem, measurable impact of problem.

Present solution, and measurable impact of solution.

Have done enough initially to show that is feasible.

Fantastic.
This is a bit like saying CSS is too much code and it needs paintbrush tools and palette picker dialog boxes like Photoshop. GUIs can be useful but they are also a limitation and with code you could really go anywhere and do previously unheard of things.
Ask HN: What's a good, short, gig for an incoming CSE PhD student?
I very recently wrapped up undergrad* in EE and am planning on starting my PhD in CSE in the fall. I was one of those who decided not to pursue an internship this summer so that I could "take some time off and relax." I figured that I could occupy my interests with a few side projects/travel/what have you. Well, roughly a month and four side projects (http://68.5.231.239:8080/index.php?swag=side_projects) later--including a personal site redesign, 4chan API exploration, OpenCL hack, and 80s sound chip exploration I've come to realize that some extra $ would be nice for some projects that require more "hardware."

Basically, I'm looking for something that has a modest multiplier on minimum wage (goal is $2k-$3k in 6 weeks or fewer working close to full time hours). My experience is roughly at a jack of all trades, master of none level. I've gone as far down as doing layout of ALUs in Cadence to as far up as prototyping Android UIs in XML. I'm familiar with the typical garden variety of languages {C, C++, Python, Java, OCaml, Lisp, MATLAB} and dabbled with things such as {OpenMP, MPI, OpenCL, NumPy, scikit-learn}. I also have some hands on tech experience--assembling x86 PCs, soldering, fixing phones, etc.

My ideal target is something that doesn't require a lot of insider knowledge or momentum, which in my opinion rules out things such as mechanical turk or oDesk-like services. I'd also like to be in a position where I'm not 100% customer facing e.g. being an Uber driver or negotiating my rates all the time.

Location: Southern California if that makes a difference

*I went to a large public school so I don't have a diploma yet though I've passed all my requirements and things are being processed
DreamHack
what is this \theta_{13} ?
I think this is a practicality concern; specifically, with regards to the UI, and following the rule of least surprise to keep user (i.e. programmer) confusion down.
Online (UK) pirates could face 10 years in jail
They could publish descriptive statistics of the salaries without publishing the salaries themselves.
Yeah, whatever the problem here is, it's almost certainly very user-specific, depending on the mix of email they get, and Linus is probably somewhat atypical.

I saw his original post on G+, and of course immediately went and checked my gmail spam folder.... and... no false positives at all, 100% correctly identified spam.
I've defined it already. As far as experience is concerned, there are multiple systematic paths (under different branches of Yoga) to experience this non-material thing which is self only, but unfortunately you can't do it with your very limited material senses. Do you realize the subtle level at which brain operates? when your instruments can't fathom subtleness of your brain, how can such instruments even get the glimps of consciousness which is subtler than mind.

It hardly takes an year or two under proper guidance and full commitment to get glimpses of this subtlemost thing, do you dare to invest?

If you fanatically stick to a viewpoint without even evaluating the other view with an open mind, you risk of repeating what religious fanaticism did with pre-modern scientists in the west.

And regarding downvotes, do you think I care? I could have posted more popular comment in favor of materialism to gain more material points :p

Edit: To learn more, you can read autobiographies of two living yogis [0] and [1]. A succinct yet most authoritative practical guide is Yoga Sutras [2].

0. http://www.amazon.in/If-Truth-Be-Told-Memoir/dp/9351368068/
1. http://www.amazon.com/Apprenticed-Himalayan-Master-Yogis-Aut...
2. http://www.swamij.com/index-yoga-meditation-yoga-sutras.htm
BEST SKATE SLAMS 2015
Oh, come on! It has nothing to do with materialism but everything with complex systems and what we call "ecosystems" - with the stochastic-within-fundamental-laws nature of what we call universe or reality.

Ecosystems could exhibit what appears (to an external [hypothetical] observer) to be a conscious, "intelligent" behavior due to obeying to underlying "forces" or "laws" - physical, environmental (herd behavior, etc.) economical (energy expenditure, diminishing returns), evolutionary (which affects populations).

Forest or town formations (which appears to be "optimal", "designed", while they just grew up causally out of individual "processes") are obvious examples.

Financial markets could be [falsely] viewed as "intelligent", while it is just a stochastic individual actions and "herd behavior".

Ants or bees colony, a big city at night, viewed from an aircraft - they all appear to have consciousness of its own, but no, it is mere an appearance. Nevertheless we cannot assert that these formations are purely chaotic - they are shaped by a chance, but in accordance with the underlying forces and laws which govern (or limit) behavior of individual "agents" within the system.

Just like all these atoms - they have their positions due to multiple causes (stochastic processes), but in accordance with fundamental laws of what we call "gravity", "magnetism and electricity", "conservation of energy", etc. There is no "intelligence" or "consciousness" apart from that, or That, as a Hindu would call it.
Non-nullable pointers for C++
One of the aircraft named is the Kalinin K-7 [1], which is a favorite ridiculous aircraft of mine. It's the most literally "flying fortress" looking aircraft ever made. The design process for the K-7 was "add engines until it flies".

Basically, the Kalinin K-7 was an attempt to build an extremely heavy, high capacity aircraft before the jet engine was introduced. As a result, the entire plane is prop-driven, and the plane has a crap-ton of engines. There's 6 on the leading edges of the wings, but when it turned out 6 wasn't enough, they just started adding engines anywhere they could until the thing flew. By the end, there were the 6 original engines on the leads of the wings, plus 4 more engines on top of the wings and two more on each side of the cockpit/cabin.

For some more reading/pictures, see [2][3].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalinin_K-7

[2] https://www.warhistoryonline.com/military-vehicle-news/serio...

[3] http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/models/aircraft/Kalinin-K7.html