skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I did not mean any written right just that if it is okay for one country to have nuclear weapons then it is okay for every country. There is nothing to justify the position that only a selected group of countries is entitled to poses nuclear weapons.

You have a bit of a point with non-proliferation treatise but they essentially mean that countries voluntarily refrain from spreading nuclear weapons.

And you sidestepped the question about embargoing the USA by discussing it powerful position. I am only arguing that it would be better foreign policy to, for example, offer a discount on oil for 20 years if the USA dismantles its nuclear weapons as opposed to enforcing an oil embargo until they do so.

And party you are saying what I mean, some countries refrain from having nuclear weapons because they got military protection in return which in turn also implies that in some sense possessing nuclear weapons is a good thing. Here the USA is essentially paying for other countries wavering a good thing.

Or compare Russia and Iran. The USA is giving something to Russia in return for the reduction of it's nuclear stockpile namely the reduction of its own nuclear stockpile. Iran on the other hand is not as powerful as the USA and company and so they can bully them to achieve similar goals. This looks like abuse of power to me.
Release the spreadsheet.
10 Signs Show Future of Business Intelligence Is Bright
Inertia can often set in especially if you're someone who is not very vocal about asking for a raise or keeping track of how in-demand your skills are.
Hillary and the gig economy
I think there's as much a story in the managerial response to the spreadsheet as in the spreadsheet itself. If there really was not a problem (or not a statistically-significant one, or not a statistically-significantly worse-than-industry-norms one), it seems like there would have been better ways to respond. Even "HR did the stats, you can't see them, but our data implies less wage gap than your data" would be worth something.

And regardless of whether we can infer anything about the true pay inequity from the sample, the response by management described here is just totally awful, and strongly implies behavior that is illegal in the US. You're not allowed to penalize an employee for discussing wages simply because their discussion is factually inaccurate or statistically unsound.
It's part biology, part conditioning.

On average, men tend to take more risks than women (a testosterone thing, hence the "having balls" expression).

In anonymous settings, when there's no risk of physical harm (video games) woman are as agressive as men. If the gender is revealed/emphasized, a difference appears. The same goes for math tests.
I think it's probably just you. I feel no cringe at all or see why anyone would.

What really bugs me is the terrible sound in a lot of these videos. The microphone needs to be near the speaker, not at the back of the room where it picks up crowd noise. Wireless mics for cellphones are around $100. If I were a speaker I would invest in one so my talk had a chance of being understandable.
I agree. I also agree that using a spreadsheet to determine this is quite difficult. I'm not saying that Google is in the right here. I'm just saying that Google's own metric for software engineer levels is not a statement of ability.
I didn't either, though it may very well be there. Twitter is a horrid medium for this sort of story and I really wish the teller had done a more traditional blog post, though ultimately I'm glad she told the story publicly at all rather than not tell it.
How about: People with similar performance should have similar salaries. I've seen qualified and capable people add no value, and less qualified people hustle to perform well.
You realize that ever-thicker doors and ever-smaller windows are all about crash test performance, right? The 911 is suffering from the exact same problem as the year go on. I've never thought of the 911 as having particularly good visibility anyway, but I guess the low hood and upright windshield helps.
Social Justice, Ideological Hijackings, and Ideological Security
Umm...why do I need to be careful of the thought? I questioned if it was a reason for the disparity, not that I agreed with it. Secondly, your article seems to mention Ellen agreed with my question
OlaCab‬ drivers stole lakhs from you today… and the company doesn’t care
Can't tell if you are sarcastic or not but to me the second line is much more readable.
Since the author established that the United States is a linguistic entity, then why doesn't they simply ask it. "Are you conscious?", "Do you have subjective experiences?". Surely whomever you direct the question at will laugh at you and no one would take you seriously.

A more plausible way for the US to take this type of question seriously is if it was indeed asked by a planet-sized alien. Then I expect the authorities in the US to come up with some traditional explanation of countries and how the US is one. And would reject the fact that it's conscious. If an entity doesn't believe that it's conscious, then can it be conscious?

I find it strange that the author didn't entertain such line of thinking since, to me, it makes the most sense. The first thing you would do when you want to know something about a language-capable entity is probably ask it. He mentions the Turing Test with regards to testing the consciousness of the supersquids, but why not the United States?
I found this highly relevant so posted it - India being a nation where the rule of law is weak, corporatism and scummy behavior like this works really well. Considering that the only way to hit these companies where it hurts is by letting their investors come to know, this is a post relevant to HN where hopefully some of the investors read it.
From what I've read I thought she was careful to keep all the information internal to the company, which seems to strengthen her case that she didn't really do anything wrong.
It's a premium Leaf. It's hard for people to understand premium electric car, when electric = economy in many people's minds.

The first time I drove an i3, I immediately got it -- "oh, it's a BMW. It's actually a nice place to be". The driving dynamics were great, and the design astoundingly useful and space-efficient. You really have to play with it in person to appreciate how much space there is and yet how compact the body is.

People will pay extra for luxury cars that don't DO anything functionally different from a run-of-the-mill sedan. Why not pay more for electrics that don't do anything different from run-of-the-mill electrics?
Url changed from http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-07-17/how-whole-new-world-te..., which points to this.
Well, the obvious solution to the self-selecting issue is just have the company publish all salaries publicly.

Of course, very few would dare to do that because they know that the data will be hiding all sorts of embarrassing and possibly resignation-causing truths. Which is kind of shitty if you think about it, especially when taken with the notion that "companies are people"... sociopathic, lying, cheating people...
I'm not disagreeing with the other things you said. But there are a few reasons I believe companies want to keep salary information private:

1. They want to get top talent at a cheap price, this is understandable because lets face it all of us want to get the best deal they can.

2. They want to avoid a hostile work environment where people are pissed off because they don't feel Jeff in sales should earn so much.

Those are the only two reasons I can think of that can be legitimate.
How to Choose the Best Strategy for Naming a Mobile App
that's probably the entire RAM of those systems at the time; several KB at most

Dartmouth Time Sharing System[1] started out on relatively small computers, but by 1965 was running on a very state-of-the-art mainframe, the GE 635[2]. It had about 1 MB memory. That doesn't sound like much right now, but:

The 635 version provided interactive time-sharing
to up to nearly 300 simultaneous users in the
1970s, a very large number at the time

It's the wheel of reincarnation. What we now call "the cloud" was called "time-sharing" in the 1960s.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dartmouth_Time_Sharing_System
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GE-600_series
Belanja di elevenia gratis voucher 1 juta
terkadang kita selalu merasa was-was dalam bertransaksi di toko online karena memang banyak yang mengatas namakan toko online. Belanja di elevenia gratis voucher 1 juta http://masihakudisini.blogspot.com/2015/07/belanja-di-elevenia-gratis-voucher-1.html
iPads are not very friendly to your face in the event of a crash. Apple devices are also famous for not wistanding heat or cold. Real automotive equipment is rigorously tested for these scenarios and many more.
Taxis in Australia (where I live) are fine. The ordering experience is a bit annoying, but they're pleasant drivers, decent cars, etc. If you're hailing on the street (outside a pub, for example), it's fine.

I seriously dislike taxis in the US primarily because of the tipping pressure. Seems to make the drivers miserable somehow.

In Asia, I have walked huge distances just to avoid having to haggle with a driver or have them reject a fare they don't like. The experience there is pretty poor as a tourist where there is a large incentive for them to hold out for someone naive.
"All the world's information, organized."

"You mean like this?"

"Holy crap, no."
This entire set of tweets is talking of an incident that did not happen recently. There's no record of her calling her manager an asshole in public while she was working there.
First head transplant in history has a Russian volunteer
I didn't get the impression he was trying to.
Previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9898075
I can't put my finger on it, but the way you parse this situation seems like you're trying as hard as possible to underplay its importance.

"Lets face it all of us want to get the best deal"- it's like you're trying to empathize with "the company", and not think too hard about the people it's screwing over. Promoting salary secrecy at the expense of your workers' justified welfare is called exploitation.
> If an entity doesn't believe that it's conscious, then can it be conscious?

On the flip side, if an entity asks itself that question, it probably is conscious.
Your profile lacks an email or point of contact. Maybe I'm naive and don't see what you mean
Prior discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9905266
Car and Driver got a 2.2 second 0-60 time on the 918, apparently.

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/the-2015-porsche-918-sp...
Some states are "at will" meaning they can fire you with no cause.
We materialists want a material definition for this thing you call non-material. What is it. Define it so we can analyze it with our material-limited instrument, empiricism. Otherwise we're forced to conclude that it does not "exist" (is material) and downvote you for being so stupid.
Nothing wrong with empathizing with the company, just as long as you can also empathize with the worker and understand why they might feel like they were screwed over when everybody else is getting paid more for the same work.
Why? It's an internal company matter. Why is it our business to see who makes what?
I don't think this hypothesis explains why ie: black men, unfairly stereotyped as aggressive & etc, earn lower salaries than white men.

I would say it's maybe a tiny bit biology, a tiny bit conditioning, and a large part racist/sexist/etc politics of exclusion.
Oh, I agree that the managerial response (particularly with her getting flooded by bonuses which her manager vetoed) was idiotic. That doesn't take away from my concerns about how people may be analysing and using the anecdata though.

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.
"No cause" does not mean "any cause". They can't fire you in retaliation. They can't fire you for being male/female. They can't fire you for being black/white/brown/pink/etc.
You're right. My bad. We don't. Not we can't.

Technically, though we can't, since we'd have to dedicate engineering time to making the changes necessary to do that kind of tracking, and we're not going to :P
Previous discussion:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9903831

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9904483
Sure. But when did the US ask itself that question? (assuming that -- in accordance with the paper -- when the US "speaks" it's the officials that speak for it)
Dup of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9905266
I think TerminalIDE is rather similar, with Termux having more up-to-date packages and terminal emulation.

Since Termux requires Lollipop or later, and TerminalIDE only works on Android versions prior to lollipop, TerminalIDE could be an alternative for devices running older Android versions.

Thanks for trying it out - let me know if you have any suggestions for improving the app!
Just to balance out the feedback. 1) That font was plenty large. I don't see how it could have reasonably been larger without being comical. 2) It seemed kind of self-evident what a playground was. 3) Your voice was plenty loud. I don't know what he was referring to re: mumbling. 4) Not sure what he's looking for there.

In short, I think the video was incredible. I wouldn't change a thing. Thanks for sharing, and don't dwell too much on one user's feedback :)
3DS: Ninjhax 2.0 Release
I'm not confrontational. But I'm a man. Does that mean we'll do something artificial to help women and leave my salary untouched?
You generally had no choice about it. For example, Dartmouth Time Sharing supported the Teletype ASR-33[1], which ran at 10 characters per second. So if you were printing a moderately long program you would need to wait 5 minutes or more.

Also the density of the tape wasn't very high (I'm guessing less than 10 characters per inch). Which means that 5 minutes of printing amounted to 300 inches, or 25 feet. It wasn't really a problem, because the paper tape naturally curled up.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teletype_Model_33
It's also a personal matter. While it's illegal to prevent an employee from sharing his or her own salary, I believe it's also illegal to share someone else's salary without their consent.
Not really...and I apologize if you think that is my meaning. I guess I look at it from a truly business standpoint and any business wants to acquire an "asset" at the lowest possible cost. Whether that be property, IP, other businesses or employees. It would be kind of foolish for a business to go in an say "sure, we will pay the highest cost" in every transaction they do and will likely lead them to bankruptcy.

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.
I think you're both misinterpreting the title.

The sign is near the ceiling. It's not a question of some people being taller than others. Nobody is that tall - not even dbaron (pictured in the photo), who is one of Mozilla's three Distinguished Engineers.

Carefully balancing swirling dependencies of doom doesn't make you a great programmer, at least not in the world of large-scale systems. Choosing the right design to avoid or eliminate those swirling dependencies is much more important.
Is It Too Late to Start a Successful Startup? (Are You Too Old?)
Those are understandable reasons, but I wouldn't call them legitimate.

Like I can understand why "being angry" sounds like a good justification for punching someone in the face, but I wouldn't call it a legitimate reason.

If your employees feel Jeff is making too much money, maybe he is? Or maybe your company is doing a poor job of making it clear what it is that he brings to the table.

Besides, you already have a hostile environment when you force employees to keep secrets from each other. (They're certainly not going to be loyal when they are being exploited as a matter of policy. It breed cynicism.)
You can use shady licenses to prevent people from re-using your code, or you could not be open source. It is a kinda-explicit green flag.
A good friend of mine is colorblind and I did a bunch of research on the topic of colorblindness a while back.

The problem(I'm sure it's great nevertheless) is that their technique doesn't add any new colors and doesn't work for full dichromats.

Today we've got the technology too supply different color information to each eye, it's even commonplace in the form of 3d television.
I did a bit of testing on how the brain interprets this (fun party trick, use complementary colors for each frame and the resulting picture is grey without the glasses and can be psychedelic shenanigans with.)

How stable the resulting color is seems to be connected to object recognition, for a fruitstand there certainly were colors I didn't see before, for a fullscreen it oscillated between colors irregularly.

I would love to reverse engineer the interpolation function the brain is using. Since it's subjective it's difficult, even with a big sample size you can't match to control colors.

If anybody wants to get into this topic I don't have any papers since it was a while back, but topics such as MacAdam ellipse, color confusion lines and image daltonization should be good starting points.
> enforced secrecy

Not that the US government enforces labor law (for the workers creating the wealth any how), but it is illegal under the Fair Labor Standards Act for an employer to tell employees they can't share what their salary is.
Browsers should (as default setting) disallow third party JS, problem solved!

Analytics and ad-network company could create on-premise products that can be installed on the website server, problem solved.

Win-Win.
http://chainsawsuit.com/comic/2012/01/17/ask-your-doctor/
If you consider meetings as one-way communication then I understand that you think it is a waste of time. But if you are trying to understand what a non-technical customer actually needs, then a ten minute meeting might save you a hundred emails and a lot of grievances in the end. To write effective emails, you need to have a common language, which is missing more often than some people realize.
FWIW, any theory that tries to say that larger scale relationships exactly match smaller scale ones is surely wrong, but so is any theory that tries to deny holistic aspects at larger scales.

Just like organs do not work like large cells and people aren't large-scale organs, societies aren't large scale people. But there are social elements that bind us into a society. Dogmatic individualism is wrong, and treating society as an individual is also wrong.
Taking a post down
I upvoted parent, not because I agree with him, but I deeply disagree with your attitude.

I think even internal criticism of companies should be considered free speech and protected as such. That doesn't mean that it should be released to the public, but employees should have the freedom to release the information if they decide so, just like whistleblowers.

> Why is it our business to see who makes what?

Of course it is your business (if you are an employee). Employee wages are determined by supply and demand, therefore, they depend on other's people wages. That aside though, any exposition of the way other employers treat other employees in similar position (such as discrimination) also should be your business, because it may affect behavior of your employer as well.

These are the reasons why we have free speech, to prevent people doing wrong things in secrecy, as to avoid collective moral correction to take place.
I guess you and I just disagree which is okay :)

I guess it depends on why you are angry and punched that person in the face, did they spit on you, hit your wife, etc? Your analogy here isn't very good.

It isn't an employees job to understand what every other employee does and honestly management trying to justify every salary to every other employee would be a bit ridiculous. Maybe Jeff (or lets say Sarah) has a good salary because they bring in 10x the business as the next best sales person. That is easily quantifiable but lets say Jeff/Sarah brings in only the average income but you can see the growth with their customers. That isn't easily quantifiable and honestly doesn't need to be broadcasted to the whole employee base (especially since employees leave and go to other competitors and would then have a good list to work off of).

Employees routinely keep information confidential from each other because it makes sense to do so. This isn't a bad thing like you make it out to be, companies shouldn't be some open society where everyone gets to know each others business.
You may have reached what you thought was a statistically significant size but unless you were selecting perfectly randomly - which I doubt you could in such an exercise - then it could not be called truly significant.
That's true, it's too little data to draw any useful conclusion from.
And the focus on the damn email attachments. I want to learn to code, not figure out how to use mutt to send attachments that aren't base64 encoded... I can figure that out if/when I actually submit a patch.
Why is it not our business?

How did you come to the mindset that we shouldn't know how labor is valued?
I never said these were the only reasons, and I didn't mention race at all.

@geofft was wondering whether the "intrinsic" differences were due to biology or social conditioning. The answer is: both.

Of course there are extrinsic factors as well.

"Politics" implies a deliberate, concerted behavior, which may exist, but this kind of bias is often subconscious, and present regardless of the gender/race of the evaluator.
This comment doesn't engage with the article at all. Please don't post generic dismissals.

In fact, it's at odds with the article. The author's critique of the taxi industry is precisely that it is exploitative.
I suspect, this paragraph from "You and your research"[0] applies as much to knowledge as to most other endeavours:

> Now for the matter of drive. You observe that most great scientists have tremendous drive. I worked for ten years with John Tukey at Bell Labs. He had tremendous drive. One day about three or four years after I joined, I discovered that John Tukey was slightly younger than I was. John was a genius and I clearly was not. Well I went storming into Bode's office and said, ``How can anybody my age know as much as John Tukey does?'' He leaned back in his chair, put his hands behind his head, grinned slightly, and said, ``You would be surprised Hamming, how much you would know if you worked as hard as he did that many years.'' I simply slunk out of the office!

> What Bode was saying was this: ``Knowledge and productivity are like compound interest.'' Given two people of approximately the same ability and one person who works ten percent more than the other, the latter will more than twice outproduce the former. The more you know, the more you learn; the more you learn, the more you can do; the more you can do, the more the opportunity - it is very much like compound interest. I don't want to give you a rate, but it is a very high rate. Given two people with exactly the same ability, the one person who manages day in and day out to get in one more hour of thinking will be tremendously more productive over a lifetime. I took Bode's remark to heart; I spent a good deal more of my time for some years trying to work a bit harder and I found, in fact, I could get more work done. I don't like to say it in front of my wife, but I did sort of neglect her sometimes; I needed to study. You have to neglect things if you intend to get what you want done. There's no question about this.

[0] http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/YouAndYourResearch.html
Have you checked the mail raw text. Maybe it's just disguised as gmail but sent from another third party server. Or spammers found a way to spam within gmail or hacked gmail. Both had happened at least once.
Now that makes sense. Thanks.