anindyabd

Will there be "Vive ready" PCs for sale too?

AWS has Elastic Beanstalk, which is a Heroku competitor.

First thing I searched for: "Kids, you tried your best, but failed miserably. The lesson is, never try." Got the exact episode. This is great :)

I don't think he was using 2FA; if he was, Amazon CS would not have given him the information (or at least should not have, based on their own policies): https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=....

The OP says he is "a security conscious user who follows the best practices like: using unique passwords, 2FA, only using a secure computer and being able to spot phishing attacks from a mile away..." yet I do not think he enabled 2FA on Amazon.com. If he did customer service would not have helped the hacker pretending to be him. As their help page says, "If you need help from Customer Service after enabling Two-Step Verification, you'll need provide a security code similar to when trying to sign in to your account." https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=...

As a rule of thumb, you should only invest what you can afford to lose, in any stock.

Slightly unrelated -- John Resig's "Secrets of the JavaScript Ninja" is such a well-written book. It allowed me to not only understand but also appreciate JavaScript. I believe understanding JavaScript as a functional language is key to being a good JS developer.

I'm building a website for managing personal budgets for my girlfriend (existing applications do not meet her needs). I'm using Node and React for the frontend; this is giving me a chance to learn React, which I've never used before.

So the technology is already there, but we can't/won't implement this because of politics? What a shame!

Anker (http://www.anker.com/) does something very similar to this company -- except, I think, it has a smaller selection of products. Judging from reviews on Amazon, Anker is also doing very well for itself.

I suspect that the goal is to be acquired by some big profitable company that wants to dip its feet into e-commerce. Or even being acquired by Amazon, which would probably want to eliminate all competition, even if its not profitable. The CEO of this company made a lot of money selling his last company to Amazon -- he's probably hoping to do the same here.

> An analytics applicant came into Jet for an interview. In some ways he was a model candidate, smart and driven. But he did not score high in the “plays well with others” category. Asked to talk about a recent project in which he was a member of a team, he could not think of any. His prospects immediately diminished to zero.

I hate this anecdote. Just because he could not, on the spot, think of a project in which he was a "member of a team," he is unable to "play well with others"? What if at his previous company he was asked to work by himself for projects? Does that mean he can't work in a team if he was made to? Does that say he's not good at analytics and doesn't deserve the job? Or what if he couldn't think of a good example of a project involving teamwork? I really hope this anecdote is merely incomplete.

This is the same reporter who co-wrote the "Inside Amazon" article.

The 17-month OPT extension has recently been terminated by a court. What are the chances that a new rule will be implemented regarding the OPT extension?

Glassdoor reviews -- like all reviews posted online -- should be taken with a generous helping of salt. A general reason is that most people post reviews to sites like these to either rant or rave, and the employees who had neither a great nor a bad experience (the majority of employees) have little to no incentive to post thoughtful reviews. Arguably, however, companies that a higher proportion of stellar reviews are clearly doing a better job keeping employees happy, so the overall rating may be worth trusting. But heed this warning: I know of one company that has a policy of posting positive reviews on Glassdoor. And they're clever enough to always populate the "Cons" section (and avoid overly glowing reviews) so that they won't give themselves away. Apparently they were having a hard time recruiting new employees, and one of the reasons was negative reviews on Glassdoor. Because Glassdoor wouldn't take the reviews down, they decided to post fake reviews. After learning about this (through a former recruiter at that company) I have a hard time trusting Glassdoor reviews. Who knows how many other companies do the same thing to attract talent?

I have no doubt that neither Google nor HP made those error maliciously. I was just curious as to whether or not it's possible to incorporate some sort of... tact?... into these recognition algorithms to avoid labeling people (or other things) offensively. Is it just a matter of a larger training set? It would be hard to cover all sorts of people in all sorts of poses, with all sorts of lighting conditions, etc.

Not getting enough good quality sleep with a newborn baby in the house is a real problem. But what is the solution, though? Hiring a full-time stay-at-home nanny seems the only way both parents can get enough sleep for the first several months, but there are many reasons why one wouldn't want to do that. Does anyone have any advice?

Great! The recognition seems fairly accurate, based on the examples they provided (haven't used Google Photos myself much, though). I'm still wary, though; I really hope we won't see a repeat of the labeling black people as gorillas fiasco, which happened as recently as earlier this year: http://mashable.com/2015/07/01/google-photos-black-people-go.... The article mentions that Google was looking into how these mistakes can be prevented... I wonder what they did/are doing?

I read this as: how successful you are has nothing to do with how innovative you are.

The Apple formula: keep innovations at a minimum, but market all your products as the coolest thing that anyone has ever seen anywhere. With enough of a marketing budget, everyone will believe you.

It's interesting that after Amazon stopped selling the Chromecast Google is still letting them sell the Chromebit.

According to the article, even though you can't see all the reviews, you can see at least one review or a rating: "Below each book on the shelf is a card with either a review or a rating from the site."

I work at a big company, and I also consider most C-level executives here to be glorified secretaries. All they ever do is write emails, stare at some charts, and yell at engineers to write code faster. What's most annoying is that sometimes they pretend to understand engineering challenges -- they learn some jargon and start throwing it around. That makes things worse; a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

We engineers are nothing but servants to these people.

Instead of teaching at a large research school which cares more about professors obtaining grants, he should teach at a small liberal-artsy school where the professors are expected to spend more of their time actually teaching students.

I do not think this is the case. I tested this out by clicking on several articles without hitting "Show Full Article" on any of them. On the first article, I was told I was reading 2 of 10 free articles. After 8 clicks I hit my quota.

I am of the opinion that comment authors should, if capable, explain his or her reasons for thinking the way he or she does, without resorting to throwing unqualified insults.

Furthermore, I think everyone has a right to his or her own opinion.

It's easy to understand why states are willing to raise a significant amount of their budget through the lottery. It's because people -- especially Americans -- hate taxes, and many politicians come to power by promising lower taxes. But states still need money for schools and roads and all those good things that people still expect, so lottery is an easy way to raise that money. Without the lottery, states will never come close to balancing budgets unless efficient, progressive taxes are implemented. Something tells me that will be hard to do.

Then that portion is the tax, not the lottery ticket itself. In the same way that there's a tax on alcohol, but the alcohol itself is not a tax because no one's forcing you to buy it. The author himself states: "The lottery is not a tax. The inflated price of lottery tickets is"... which makes his headline "The lottery is a tax" shameless clickbait.

> The papers that do replicate are tightly clustered a small number of researchers (Kahneman & Tversky)

This doesn't surprise me at all. Kahneman wrote a book, "Thinking, Fast and Slow", in which he spends a long time talking about how most psychologists and social scientists do not understand the basics of statistics and therefore end up with flawed conclusions.

Isn't Zappos fully owned by Amazon now?

I wouldn't call recursion boring. Quicksort in Haskell is probably my favorite two lines of code:

  quicksort [] = []
  quicksort (x:rest) = quicksort [y | y <- rest, y <= x] ++ [x] ++ quicksort [y | y <- rest, y > x]