Now one of the guys pushing it, is CEO of Microsoft and we are finally seeing a (real) difference.. I joined the MS community a long time ago and this is (again) a heart warming addition!
Good job Microsoft, you're a bit late to the party. But no doubt, the ROI will show sooner or later! ;-)
I'm thrilled. The MS tooling is really, really good and the only thing stopping me from committing to the stack fully has been it's lack of open sourceness (vendor lock in is still feasible but getting less of an issue).
Edit: Pardon the fanboyism but I've tried a set of feasible Non-MS language options for my particular domain and F# in Visual Studio beats for me, my particular use case and coding style Scala, Clojure, Ruby, Python, Haskell, "browser technologies"...
: http://instagram.com/p/yqQe0bK3Bq/: firstname.lastname@example.org
"This change fixes a potential problem in unwinding on Linux"
Note: You'll need a terminal account to boot it, but it only takes 10 seconds to come online once you do that.
Something in the release notes caught my eye:
> The past months have seen pypy mature and grow, as rpython becomes the goto solution for writing fast dynamic language interpreters.
I asked this question on the Perl 6 thread from a few days ago but didn't get an answer. Does anyone know why on earth the Perl 6 folks created yet another dynamic language VM+JIT with MoarVM instead of taking advantage of all the great work done with PyPy? Does anyone know whether PyPy was even considered as a target before writing MoarVM?
Things seem adequately speedy, haven't investigated the network throughput tweaks yet.
Then they got National Lottery funding. Now they've rebuild most of the huts in brick, re-landscaped the grounds, have elaborate displays, added the "National Museum of Computing", renamed it "Historic Bletchley Park", put in a visitor's center, a children's playground, a cafe, and, of course, a gift shop. There's "Turing Gate" "Colossus Way", "Enigma Place", two memorials, and more stuff under construction.
All this is on the Bletchley Park side. The Colossus rebuild is at the National Museum of Computing, which is on the same property but has separate staff and funding. (http://www.tnmoc.org/) They don't get along with the Bletchley Park tourist operation and don't have public funding. ("Other exhibitions are available at Bletchley Park, but operated independently of the Bletchley Park Trust.", says the Trust site.)
Alan Turing wasn't a national security risk because he was gay, but he actually was a risk because he was that good.
Anybody who could break rotor ciphers circa WW2 was very valuable indeed.
Can anyone suggest a better URL?
Edit: Sorry, it seems I got this wrong and the original post was just fine: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8993631. (That might mean it was other sites ripping off MKWeb and not the other way around. So I'm glad we didn't change the URL after all.)
It's hard to say for certain what aspects of "humanity" is carried by mitochondria. So some will say that there are two mothers, others will say there is only one.
Some will say this is unnatural or violates religious beliefs. In my opinion it's a wide leap to say some reproductive technique is evil just because the people writing holy texts didn't conceive of it a few centuries ago.
Instead, defective mitochondria are being replaced with mitochondria from a healthy donor. This technique is only valid for diseases involving defective mitochondria.
The mitochondrial DNA is responsible for very very little of the genetic material that defines who a person is, essentially limited to how effective the mitochondria are at their job. This is around 0.1% of the total genetic code.
Mitochondria are organelles in our cells that break down molecules to provide energy for the cell, in the form of ATP. They have their own genetic code completely distinct from the host cell's DNA.
The mitochondria are replaced in either the egg OR in the embryo. In both cases this is done by removing the nucleus (containing the cell's genetic material) from the cell that has defective mitochondria and transferring it to a donor cell with healthy mitochondria. The donor cell's nucleus is completely removed.
The mitochondrial DNA is passed down from the mother alone, whilst the DNA in the embryo is formed from both the mother and father. For this reason mitochondrial DNA has much less genetic diversity. Mitochondria 'reproduce' by binary fission which is similar to bacterial cell division and produces little variation in its genetic code, whilst egg and sperm go through meiosis allowing the genetic code to be mixed.
Opposition seems to be coming from two camps.
- Those who don't like the destruction of the donor embryo (when that method is used),
- Those who think this is the start of ever more invasive genetic modification of humans, or so called "designer babies"
I couldn't imagine the additional emotional turmoil that would come from repeated miscarriages, terminations etc. I'm really holding myself back from thinking about the ecstasy that a confirmed pregnancy will provide after our time and struggles - to have complications and loss after that would be devastating.
So bravo to the scientists working on this, to the parliament for 'permitting' it, and of course to those struggling wannabe parents having to fight for their family dream.
And I feel for the poor programmer whose job it is to deal with the brand-new edge case of putting three parents' names on one.
Also everyone should watch Gattaca, it is one of best movies that shows how social inequality can arise in situations like these.
I didn't know they could even do this (technically), so this news gave me tears of joy.
I am lucky on two counts, to be male (can't pass it on) and also not (yet) had any symptoms myself. It must be horrible for any female who has to decide whether having kids is worth passing those risks on to their offspring.
There are people who don't think this is a good thing?! If we could eliminate congenital disease, and make everyone smarter, it would be like fast-forwarding human evolution.
Radio Shack tends to have old leases in 2nd tier shopping centers. Why would they buy a marginal retailer with poor footprint, when you could just lease stores yourself?
There was a time when getting space in malls and strip shopping centers was tough. This isn't one of those times.
As a bonus they could use it to locally store popular items, use the stores as pick-up and drop-off zones (as the site suggests) and have a few computers consumers can come in and use to order directly off of Amazon. I would hate to see Radioshack die, it kind of makes me sad to think the brand could just vanish.
Edit: To clarify, no sales tax was one of the first things Amazon and other online retailers had on their side. They could sell things cheaper, even by a little, and the rest would be made up by not having to pay sales tax. If they have a presence in a state though they have to collect sales tax. If you buy a lot from Amazon it is kind of like taking a 8.5% pay cut in buying power. If you remember back in 1997-8 there were several bills popping up around it. My Google-fu is failing me, but this is a real issue. Amazon even discontinued the associates programs in some states to avoid taxes.
"2 day shipping (free with Prime)"
"1 day shipping $3.99"
"Get off your butt and go get it yourself (closest 2 miles)"
Imagine US government had taken over RadioShack to "protect the jobs" using taxpayers money and spent billions for a so called turnaround.
I'm not sure I see the logic/advantage of taking over existing RadioShack locations as opposed to just making real estate decisions based upon Amazon's own requirements.
A select subset of their stores might be quite select (and limited in number).
As I mentioned in a previous post, I became addicted to opiates in the mid 2000's and lived as a zombified-but-somehow-functional heroin addict for about 4 years.
There is no doubt, in my personal case, that acid and mushrooms (that I often hand-picked in cow pastures after rainstorms here in central Florida) gateway-ed me into harder, destructive "escapes", and for that reason, I cannot fully endorse this sort of thing.
I've had amazing trips where I literally felt as one with the group of friends I was chilling with and created deep, transcendent bonds, and I've had a select few shit ones where I felt totally alienated from every living soul (but not nature, interestingly) on earth.
They did expand my consciousness, but looking back, I see now that it introduced into my psyche a fairly deep distrust of authority and convention which, under sober scrutiny, perhaps did little to help me always successfully nagivate my life.
Treating the very sick and/or terminally ill with psychedelics makes great sense to me; anything to ease those pains, but my own experience makes me want to throw at least a dart of caution into the mix when it comes to making a blanket statement about the benefits of LSD and such.
When the history of second-wave psychedelic research is written, Bob Jesse will be remembered as one of two scientific outsiders who worked for years, mostly behind the scenes, to get it off the ground.
Attitude that keeps everything stagnant and backwards.
This strikes me as sort of funny. For someone completely unfamiliar with this stuff I would imagine encountering it to be pretty trippy on its own.
They are doing a great deal to push this research forward and have been for decades.
>The first wave of research into psychedelics was doomed by an excessive exuberance about their potential. For people working with these remarkable molecules, it was difficult not to conclude that they were suddenly in possession of news with the power to change the worlda psychedelic gospel[...]It didnt take long for once respectable scientists such as Leary to grow impatient with the rigmarole of objective science. He came to see science as just another societal game, a conventional box it was time to blow upalong with all the others.
Special emphasis on the last sentence.
Maybe the NewYorker could have waited for that to happen.
But that is my personal choice. I would say it's probably a very positive thing on the other hand for people like Patrick who never consumed these substances. DMT might be the best one for someone who is dying, as it is hypothesized that pineal gland floods an endogenous version of this chemical into your bloodstream upon death. Consuming it prior to death could potentially work as a "practice run" to help cope with the real thing as sad as it sounds.
Seriously. Look at his posting history.
1. You plug a USB device into one Mac. It asks you if you want to use it for Time Machine. You say no. Now, no other Mac will ask you this question againbecause the preference has been stored on the drive, instead of on the computer.
2. You create a folder with an app you've written in it, and customize it with a cute "drag [this] onto [shortcut to Applications folder]" background, centering the icons on the background positions and sizing the window to perfectly fit the representation. You then copy this folder to another Mac (or any equivalent process, such as converting it into a DMG disk image and having someone download it.) They see exactly what you saw.
3. You keep an external hard disk that you frequently move back-and-forth between two Macs. The first time you plugged it into one of the Macs, it was indexed. Each time you modify it on either Mac, that index gets updated. The most recently created files are the most likely to be the ones you'll want to find through Spotlight when you plug the disk into the other Macbut if the index was machine-local rather than disk-local, the new Mac wouldn't know about the new files yet, and would have to finish re-indexing to find them. (This is, of course, what happens when you modify the disk on a Windows computer, and it sucks. We really need a "metadata index API" to start being an expected offering of a filesystem, such that all OSes interacting with the filesystem can read and update it!)
On the other hand, Windows' Thumbs.db is exactly the sort of thing you don't want cached on the media. It'd be a great innovation if, say, cameras could pre-generate Thumbs.db files so Windows could immediately show the user what was on an SD card the first time it got plugged in... but cameras don't, because Thumbs.db is a random proprietary format. So, instead, it's only useful in the same situation that the Spotlight index is: moving a drive full of photos back and forth between two computers. Which might have separate screen DPI, and thus be set to show different thumbnails, meaning new thumbnails will get generated anyway.
1. I now know a few things I've wondered for a long time.
2. I have just been reminded of how little I really know, even about devices I use for most of my waking hours.
Amen to that. Unfortunately it seems the trend is towards hiding the filesystem/concept of files completely from the user and replacing it with app-specific isolated storage in a proprietary format, which is even worse than unsolicited filesystem modifications. (On the other hand, it could be argued that these modifications would become even less noticeable in such a system... which is good or bad depending on who you ask. I'm firmly on the latter side.)
A physical write-protect is something all removable storage should have.
I don't really care about .DS_store etc as they're hidden, and thumbs.db is just as bad.
The rules where things like: - Too many trades in one direction (AKA. big pos) - P/L down by X over Y - P/L up by X over Y - Orders way off the current price
When ever there was a shutdown/pause a human/trader would need to assess the situation and decide to continue or not.
This isn't just a deployment problem. It's a monitoring problem. What mechanism did they have to tell if the servers were out of sync? Manual review is the recommended approach. Seriously? You're going to trust human eyeballs for the thousands of different configuration parameters?
Have computers do what computers do well - like compare complex system configurations to find things that are out of sync. Have humans do what humans do well - deciding what to do when things don't look right.
I encountered something like this about a year ago at work. We were deploying an extremely large new system to replace a legacy one. The portion of the system which I work on required a great deal of DBA involvement for deployment. We, of course, practiced the deployment. We ran it more than 20 times against multiple different non-production environments. Not once in any of those attempts was the DBA portion of the deployment completed without error. There were around 130 steps involved and some of them would always get skipped. We also had the issue that the production environment contained some significant differences from the non-production environments (over the past decade we had, for example, delivered software fixes/enhancements which required database columns to be dropped... this was done on the non-production systems, but was not done on the production environment because dropping the columns would take a great deal of time). Myself and others tried to raise concerns about this, but in the end we were left to simply expect to do cleanup after problems were encountered. Luckily we were able to do the cleanup and the errors (of which there were a few) were able to be fixed in a timely manner. We also benefitted from other portions of the system having more severe issues, giving us some cover while we fixed up the new system. The result, however, could have been very bad. And since it wasn't, management is growing increasingly enamored with the idea of by-the-seat-of-your-pants development, hotfixes, etc. When it eventually bites us as I expect it will, I fear that no one will realize it was these practices that put us in danger.
Even if the deployment was done correctly, during the deployment there would be old and new code in the system.
Also your submission should probably have (2014) in the title.
Maybe it's the same one .....
- They had dead code in the system
- They repurposed a flag for a previous functionality
- They (apparently) didn't had code reviews
- They didn't had a staging environment
- They didn't had a tested deployment process
- They didn't had a contingency plan to revert the deploy
It could be minimized or avoided altogether by fixing just one of the points. Incredible.
A very interesting article.
Compare the 5.45x39 stats  to a round more suited and used for defense against bears 
1 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.45%C3%9739mm2 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.45-70
Seems like a nice versatile platform for small game though.
(Which isn't to say it necessarily should be cheaper, only that it seems surprising to see that price without any attempt to compare or justify why you believe that e.g. it's already, at launch, worth 3x as much as Pivotal Tracker).
1) agree with pricing plan, too high for large teams
2) call for action - I saw the "sign in" button immediately, but had to scroll all the way down for sign up, will be nice to have a floating sign up button just next to sign in, and in the sign in page, have a link such as "not registered? sign up here" in case people click the wrong button.
3) this is more due to my personal taste, but no gmail sign up is lowering my will to spend time to test the product. I want to click click, play with it a few mins, and if it's good suggest it to my team. I don't have time to fill a form (I'm exaggerating a little, but this goes through a lot of people's mind, filling forms is annoying for some people)
4) I'd like to see a demo the product. having a dummy project that anyone can see with a "guest" login will be really great. (good if you are not willing to add gmail login for any reason)
5) if not a demo, at least a video. the gif is great, so I think a longer video will be even better, seems like a very slick UI.
all in all looks great, I like the hybrid approach, will give it a look.
I have worked in most of the roles you describe, but even after having scrolled to the bottom, I don't exactly understand how it is tailored to the roles.
What I was left with is that you have boards and progressbars. Doesn't really compare to the stuff I already use.
Maybe you could explain even better how each role can tailor an interface to meet their needs, and what you provide better than other software out there.
(1) Project Management is painful and the existing providers still don't fully grasp what the market needs/wants
(2) Matterhorn must be doing something right to get over the noise, so kudos to your team! For me, it's your realization that not everyone manages their workflow in the same way, so being able to coordinate while giving people their personal preferences is really powerful. I wish I could see a demo!
Interesting project, I'll give it a try.
I'll keep it bookmarked though, perhaps my attitude in this regard is out of date.
Mixed Content: The page at 'https://matterhorn.io/register' was loaded over HTTPS, but requested an insecure XMLHttpRequest endpoint 'http://api.matterhorn.dev/users.json'. This request has been blocked; the content must be served over HTTPS.app-6c6e7022ec9660d68ebd624054790399.js:3 sendapp-6c6e7022ec9660d68ebd624054790399.js:3 p.extend.ajaxapp-6c6e7022ec9660d68ebd624054790399.js:6467 (anonymous function)app-6c6e7022ec9660d68ebd624054790399.js:3 p.event.dispatchapp-6c6e7022ec9660d68ebd624054790399.js:3 g.handle.h
Will you offer some sort of micro plan for small teams of 5 or 6?
Here's a good comparison of the various PM tools so you can compare Matterhorn to the established players. http://stackshare.io/stackups/trello-vs-asana-vs-basecamp-vs...
Overall, I like what you've done here. I like being able to segment by customer and the board. Simple interface that is good once you learn the workflow.
Personally, this space appear more crowded. So far, I have read only positive feedback on existing tools like Jira/trello ...etc and I have not read many bad experiences (may be I have limited exposure). Is there really a window/space for new entrant?
To the current users of other tools: Are these tools (Jira/trello ...etc) fundamentally different to each other or just incremental differences while fundamentally similar?
Also subscriptions are really hard to deal with at an .edu, and at 16weeks/semester (14 really) so 4 months x $9.00 x nStudents
Maybe it'd be better to concentrate on one usa-case. Say Accountant. That way you have more focus. Once you talked to 10-100 accountants and made sure the product is good for them, move on to the next use-case.
When I load the page I see I can "try it" but I don't want to invest the time. Show me exactly why your product is going to be more valuable and worth the time to migrate over.
> You could force everyone to track their time and their progress in exactly the same way, even if it doesn't fit their workflow
These lines briefly made me hopeful that this was some clever layer in front of all the various project management systems that would allow them to talk to each other.
I would value this because I vastly prefer the seemingly uncommon terminal-based workflow, and such a layer would presumably be able to talk to Emacs org-mode or whatever, just as it talks to Jira.
As it is, this is just another project management system that doesn't fit my workflow.
The create new project button was broken.
It's unclear what the pricing is. The homepage says $9/user/month. When I logged in I think the price was 9/user/month
Seems like all this effort on these type of pm systems could have been applied to some niche market that's still using custom MS Access systems built in the early 2000s.
It seems Uber started a new hype repurposing German words. The opposite is happening in German speaking countries: "handy" for cell phone and "public viewing" for watching a live TV event on a projected wall.
Can one integrate his mailbox? Outlook and MS project server/Sharepoint are a good example, though there is room for improvements.
"Do you need a way to divide your resources across multiple projects[...]"
It's a pet peeve of mine that so many processes and tools use the phrase "resource" in place of person. It may not have been what was meant by "resources" here, but that's how it reads.
"Do you need a way to manage multiple projects[...]"
"Do you need a way to divide your time between multiple projects[...]"
Having said that, I think there's a lot of room for improvement in the issue tracking space. Good luck!
The landing page and product though very nice and stylish seem not offer any outstanding feature or did I miss something?
Edit: this comment was downranked in the thread in less than 50 seconds, anyone has an idea why?
Otherwise its a very nice landing page in my opinion.
What I want to know is "Why should I use this over Asana?"; the copy doesn't address it, and the screenshots leave me unsure as to the specific use cases for the product.
Would be great to hear any feedback you have on the features, as you seem to know what you want from pm tools.
Also: The centered text is annoying to read when there's a series of paragraphs.
I agree with earlier comment asking for a demo project.
All the best!
I mean this is not aimed at causal users but to people who might want to use this on a daily basis with very important stuff.
And they are suppose to trust an anonymous website?
This is really confusing for me.
Looks like Asana?, but with a focus for agencies who have multiple projects / deadlines?
Or do you think free members aren't worth the hassle?
The avatars are quite stereotypical: male developer, female designer, male project manager. Why don't you switch it up? There's female developers too.
After doing a bit of digging, however, I'm a bit concerned. Now, Lee is almost 90, and has suffered a stroke that seems to have had lasting effects. She filed a lawsuit in 2007 against the son-in-law of her former agent, claiming that he took advantage of her mental state during her recovery and duped her into assigning him the copyright to To Kill a Mockingbird. For much of her adult life, her sister handled press relations and shielded Lee from these pressures. Her sister passed away three months ago, and suddenly this new book comes to light.
I really hope these suspicions are wrong, and that there's nothing shady at play here. I'm excited to read the book, but I can't help but be skeptical of the timing.
 (I dislike linking to Gawker Media sites on principle, but Jezebel actually wrote a good post digging into the details of this - "Be Suspicious of the New Harper Lee Novel".)
I was forced to read To Kill a Mockingbird for school. I started reading it with a bad attitude. After I finished it, I immediately turned back to the first page and reread it, not with a school mindset but with a "this is amazing literature that I need in my life" mindset.
If she was writing this "sequel" at the same time she was writing the original, they're likely to contain the same themes and the same timeless way of looking at life, society, and what it means to be human. I don't know if any novel could survive the pressure of being a long-delayed sequel of To Kill a Mockingbird, but I'm definitely willing to let it try!
I can't remember exactly who the writer was, but he spoke about his experience interviewing Kurt Vonnegut for his biography, so it was probably Charles Shields.
Interestingly, there is a list of gaps between film sequels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_longest_gaps_betwee...), and the longest gap is over 63 years, but there is no such list for books!
I look forward to the new book.
It's too bad. Because it probably is a good book. The bible might be as well. But I'll never know because suspicion of indoctrination ruined it for me. Maybe this is a personal failing. But putting books on the high school required reading list is a good way to make thinking people suspicious of motive in my view.
I also think it'll be great.
Also i remember thinking that jean was a boy till i was 20-30 pages in realizing that she was in fact a girl.
Edit: One thing that people commonly like to do is compare the U6 rate to the U3 rates of the past. "Unemployment isn't 5.6%, it's really closer to 12% ..." That's foolish because it's an apples to oranges comparison. Yes 11.2% is high unemployment, but what we judge as the low/satisfactory unemployment rate would come in somewhere around 7-7.5% when looking at the U6 rate -vs- the 4-4.5% that's considered low/satisfactory using the U3 rate.
"The U6 unemployment rate counts not only people without work seeking full-time employment (the more familiar U-3 rate), but also counts "marginally attached workers and those working part-time for economic reasons." Note that some of these part-time workers counted as employed by U-3 could be working as little as an hour a week. And the "marginally attached workers" include those who have gotten discouraged and stopped looking, but still want to work. The age considered for this calculation is 16 years and over."
One reason Economists are interested in Unemployment is because when it reaches a certain level it puts pressure on prices through upwards wage pressure (fewer people looking for work means employers need to pay more.) Defining Unemployment narrowly as only those actively looking for work and recently unemployed provides for a statistic best measures the labor market's functioning.
As others have noted, there are many other statistics that are collected which can elucidate social concerns.
I fear that 1999 was "peak labor" -- the point at which technology started to destroy more jobs than it created.
We HN types live in a bubble in which times couldn't be better -- but in the larger economy there are fewer jobs paying and they're paying lower wages. It's troubling.
The issue of the headline figure not capturing certain key features is mentioned as nauseum on CNBC a or any decent financial news source.
Gallup and the person who posted this is trying to make it sound like a revelation. Further almost all types of employment has improved.
Here in the UK we have a similar obfuscation technique where the opposition says more women are out of work than ever, whereas the government says more women are in work than ever. Both are true, but behind the scenes it is because there is the largest population of work aged women ever.
Participation tells you how many people are working. Minimum wage tells you how well the worst-paid fare (and as Adam Smith notes in An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, "A man must always live by his work" -- which he expands to mean: wages must provide not only for the laborer, but for a spouse, children, and the education of those children to provide for the next generation of workers.
Median wage tells you where the typical worker is. It's not skewed upwards by a few highly-compensated individuals as mean would be. If you and I are at a bar and Bill Gates walks in, the mean wealth has just jumped tremendously, the median not so much.
Bottom decile tells you how those at the bottom rung of the compensation ladder, though not necessarily at minimum wage, are doing. Smith has a considerable amount to say on this as well.
The biggest problem with unemployment (and other economic / econometric metrics) is that once defined they become political, and an change to more meaningful statistics tends to make the administration in power look worse.
Their unemployment rate, currently at 23%, includes long-term discouraged workers, which the BLS stopped counting in 1994.
Their inflation value is based on the way inflation was computed before 1980. It includes house prices. Their value is currently 8%. This compares to the official number of 2%. Shadowstats has it right - increasing real estate prices are inflation.
This makes the US economy always looks nicer.
(Same for GDP with chained dollars btw.)
"But, in most cases, going on disability means you will not work, you will not get a raise, you will not get whatever meaning people get from work. Going on disability means, assuming you rely only on those disability payments, you will be poor for the rest of your life. That's the deal. And it's a deal 14 million Americans have signed up for."
"wondering what hollowed out the middle class"
Perhaps the clueless people who don't know anything about what things mean ( the people this article is targeted at ) are the same people who are unemployed/under-employed ( notably also the group this is targeted at )
Summary of tfa: "The number news refers to as unemployment does not mean what you thought it means; it means X" Great, now how does this tell us anything we couldn't learn by looking up "unemployment rate" on wikipedia?
Perhaps this definition hasn't caught up with the increase in freelancing and self-employment. Underemployment, particularly among lower skilled workers, surely is an issue in the U.S. but Gallup's approach could be undercounting some newer types of "good" jobs.
It shows the real unemployment rate, counting short-term discouraged and marginally attached workers, to be around 22-23% today. That's up from around 12-13% before the 2008 recession.
As far as can tell the number of actual fulltime jobs is decreasing and the number of jobs that aren't providing full time income is increasing.
Unless you have a political agenda why would you insist that U3 is better than U6?
More information here:
This goes towards the "good job" / "American Dream" aspect of the article. People shouldn't have to work 2 or 3 part-time jobs to make a living if they don't want to, just because those are the jobs available. If somebody wants full-time employment (for which they are otherwise qualified), it would be better for them to have that.
Of course, it is cheaper for the corporations to use part-time, because it keeps them flexible with scheduling/substitutes and due to added costs like benefits etc.
I have been trying to figure out whether it makes sense to offer tax incentives/penalties which would push the balance towards more full-time jobs instead of part-time. One piece I have envisioned is forcing employers to offer the benefits a full-time employee would receive prorated to part-timers, with a penalty added for splitting it up. Make them want to offer a full-time job instead.
The part I am worried about is whether the effect is too strong and prevents somebody who actually only wants part-time work from finding employment (e.g.: a student, full-time parent, senior citizen or handicapped person). There needs to be some part-time work available, but generally a member of the workforce probably wants a full-time job.
In a way, the author is committing the same sin as those he criticizes: he also oversimplifies the employment situation. The unemployment rate and the labor force participation rate vary dramatically by region and by profession (in California alone, compare the Bay Area to the Imperial Valley).
It's much better for some highly skilled individuals, especially in booming metros, and much worse for others, who are in either low skilled, or in regions experiencing secular decline.
Also, Gallup's own underemployment numbers (cited in the article) show both the unemployment rate and the underemployment rate at 7.1% and 15.9%, which is lower than where they were in Feb 2010, and that it is almost certainly lower than what they were in the depths of the great recession.
Nobody would argue that these stats aren't as good as they should be, but to say that things haven't improved at all is very disingenuous, which is why this reads more like political anger-rousing article than a well-reasoned op/ed. The latter isn't surprising considering that the first rumbles of the next presidential election cycle are here.
If you're not looking for a job, it's fair to not be counted as unemployed. Otherwise you can also count any kid in age of working in the statistics or family who have decided to have one member employed and the other taking care of the family.
The writer (CEO of gallup) pretty much explains that the stats behind the title is not what HE thinks it is.
This statistic describes those who want to work and cannot find a job.
Even the local news gives this disclaimer almost every time they mention the unemployment rate. Maybe it's not that nobody tells you, but that the author just didn't notice it.
The sum of their "% Payroll to population", "% Underemployed", and "% Unemployed" appears to be about 70%. If they're disjoint categories, what is the other 30%?
On the other hand, it doesn't include those who are working without a legal contract, which I am sure would lower the percentage significantly since it's not uncommon.
The potentially alarming angle is whether the drop in unemployment is attributed to people finding jobs or to people leaving the workforce.
The current reporting of unemployment numbers certainly leaves room for spin, depending on how you want to package the news.
No removing of prisoners, people on disability, housewifes, people that worked just one paid hour this week...
The picture painted by that number would be bleak in most of the developing word, that's why it's not readily published.
What is new and interesting is that in the past six years the American labour participation rate--the fraction of the working-age-adult population that is either employed or looking for work--has plummeted from 66% to 63%: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000
To get a sense of what a big deal this is, you can re-run that chart to cover the full range of data from 1948-2014. After being flat at about 59% for two decades, the LPR begins to ramp up in the late 60's as Boomer women entered the workforce. It exhibits a broad flat peak from 1990 to 2008 at about the 66-67% level, and then starts its dramatic decline in sync with the financial crisis, and is now back at a level not seen since 1978.
This is a demographic shift of enormous proportions, and the answer to "Why" is not known: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/06/t...
There is a fairly desperate attempt to spin this as "Boomers retiring" but that runs into a problem of simple arithmetic: the population of the United States was 203 million in 1970, when the ramp-up in the LPR began. It is now 320 million, a factor of 1.5 higher. So for every Boomer retiring, there should be 1.5 new workers entering the workforce. Where are they?
The bigger picture here is that the US sacrificed some broad-based increase in prosperity over the last 20+ years while helping the developing world to climb out of true poverty. You cannot bring 1 billion Chinese (and to a lesser extent other peoples) into the "middle class" through trade while at the same time sustaining the exceptionally high standard of living of so many Americans -- at least not without some major, hopefully-temporary dislocations.
At the same time, somewhat related to this, we are witnessing the passing of a period in which America enjoyed unique competitive advantages which are unlikely to re-occur in a similar form. No amount of IT innovation can make up for the passing of peak-US-cheap-oil-production (1970s), or the loss or diminishing of the dollar's reserve status and the US's central role in global trade (ongoing), or the temporary advantage of economic competitors being crushed in WWII (50's and 60's)...
The Americans worst affected by these policies were bought off to some extent with cheap imported consumer goods (think Walmart), oodles of credit, the spread of two income households and of course benefit programs.
Now, if you were to try to address this problem sincerely from a position that jobs and employment are desirable social goods you wish to maximize, you might aim for sensible policies that would reduce the cost of living for typical Americans (allowing them to attain desirable, economically justifiable employment at globally competitive wages), increase labor mobility (ability to move for opportunity), and reduce the barriers to employment at the bottom of the employment ladder. Secondary policy objectives might include simplifying the tax system, encouraging household formation, and restructuring education so that expensive college degrees are less necessary.
A lot of this has to do with how people are living in what kind of housing, how that housing is financed and what kind of transport they use to get to work and what kind of shape they are in mentally, physically and perhaps even spiritually to be be productive. I think major changes are needed to achieve broad-based 21st century prosperity growth in the US. Some of these changes would be deeply unpalatable and will only be considered if economic conditions worsen substantially.
Some here seem to think we are entering a post-employment society where jobs will be increasingly scarce because they are not needed and that this is a good thing. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. This kind of thing is the hallmark of privileged bubble thinking. If you really remove the dignity of work from so many, you run the risk of making the people themselves seem redundant.
Edit: to clarify, this is relevant because both Atom and NW.js use a webkit shell.
The zkhost configuration you performed was for the kafka manager application itself, since it stores state in Zookeeper. Once started, you did the right thing by adding a cluster.
[error] k.m.ApiError - error : Ask timed out on [ActorSelection[Anchor(akka://kafka-manager-system/), Path(/user/kafka-manager)]] after [1000 ms]
But then I waited for a bit (Updating internal state...?) and hit refresh and it worked. Also it didn't just pick up my cluster from zookeeper, had to click "Add cluster" and enter zookeeper deets before it showed. This is probably expected behaviour, just a heads up to others.
It's also really nice not to have to generate my own assignments.
Maybe I'll contribute a tool to do other helpful tasks such as adding replication to a topic when developers create topics with no replication.
If you want to start playing, telnet there, create an account, hit "p" to play a game and then "?" to read basic help. http://nethack.alt.org/ will keep logs of your game as well as other stats.
This post also mentions previous bot attempts such as the Tactical Amulet Extraction Bot (TAEB), which is also worth looking at: http://taeb.github.io/
Warning, SPOILERS: If you're okay with spoiling the game to some extent (e.g., solutions to common puzzles, which corpses are safe to eat, strategies), check out the NetHackWiki: http://nethackwiki.com/wiki/Main_Page
It's really, really neat. Even to those of us who know little or nothing about the game, from the nested Englishy descriptors piled up into short conditions for things-the-bot-might-want-to-do, the basic strategies can be discerned...
I read the reddit thread, and while it was in English, it made not a lick of sense to me. Now I know how non-engineers feel sometimes. :)
BTW, can someone tell me why this is such an amazing accomplishment? I know Nethack is very old, so is this a case of a complex problem space or just no one has tried before?
The author's list of milestones illustrates the key components of this achievement, as well as some limitations:
Awesome work, Jan Krajicek!
There's a bot with several wins in Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup, another roguelike. The combinations it has won are pretty rote, but it's still very impressive, particularly since I don't think it's even capable of knowing that much about the game (it uses Lua handles to pick up information about the state and I believe there's a fair chunk of the game that isn't exposed that way.)
so, the bot is also a better player than me.
For those of you who are looking to get into nethack, or play it all the time... (shameless plug) I've been working on a project for some years that helps ease some of the monotony of playing.
For example, it keeps track of where you see shops, so you can come back, maps out levels and what you've seen on them, and auto-price identifies things you pick up.
There's a rudimentary plugin system so you can write your own extensions (more coming soon).
If anybody gets introduced to Rogue-like UI for the first time because of this article, and likes it, I also recommend checking out Dwarf Fortress. Similar but very very different in ways that people tend to either love or hate.
See http://mute-net.sourceforge.net/howAnts.shtml for an explanation of the algorithm
Last year I did a GPU programming project involving an ant-colony-like simulation. Based on the idea that ants have immediate knowledge only of their neighborhood, it's a simulation that works well with GPU fragment-shader-based parallelization:
In other news, this article uses "comprise" to mean the opposite of what it actually means, which is the subject of another of today's HN front page articles: https://medium.com/backchannel/meet-the-ultimate-wikignome-1...
I haven't seen clean code using GopherJS so far, if anyone has examples, please let me know.
as it is, I thought I was looking at the output of a Markov chain.
I recently shut down two small firms that I've run for years and years - the opportunity cost of not doing contract work or something else that paid decently was too much to keep at it.
...but I loved the code base, as clunky as it was. It had warts, scars, and stretch marks that documented its path through the years. I don't miss running the firms, but I do miss the code.
I'll be buying posters to hang on the wall and remind me of the good times.
I find this service a bit expensive for something that can be made in 10 minutes with illustrator - maybe if I get fantastic glossy paper, but it doesn't seem to mention much about the paper specs.
The poster can be a good thing to get after shipping a milestone!
[#] maybe displayed as a big "snake" with all the code put together
I need this printed on t-shirts!
That would auto-update when new directories / repos are added later - maybe a useful addition to your tool?
EDIT: Appears to be working peachy on OS X 10.10.2 with zsh.
This announcement while welcome doesn't give me a really good idea of what is going to change. It would be absolutely fantastic if some examples could have been included instead of just stable/X.
For example, using hypothetical released named X.0-RELEASE and Y.0-RELEASE and Z.0-RELEASE what are the branch names going to be called, how often are they going to be created, and how long are they going to be supported?
How does this compare to LTS from Canonical/Red Hat? How easy is it going to be to keep up with the changes between the minor releases? What guarantees does the community have that driver modifications/fixes are not going to get stuck in -CURRENT or the next major release only, or have to be manually back-ported?
I'd really like to hear your thoughts with regards to this announcement, given how you've been vocal in your frustration of the FreeBSD support methodology 
Sure would be nice. Coming from Debian, I long for a similar model in FreeBSD.
1. US Gov. passes Executive Order permitting: a) the Depart. of State to identify individuals/organizations as "terrorist/terrorist organizations"; b) the CIA to put individuals (including citizens) on targeted kills lists; c) the FBI to put people on a Terrorist Watchlist;
2. There is no oversight to the process and the Government is not required to disclose who is on the list(s) or even the criteria to get on the list;
3. When the first (known) CIA targeted killing of a US citizen failed and the US Gov. was sued, the Court dismissed the case finding the Courts can not perform a Constitutional review, because such an Executive Order falls squarely within the Political Question Doctrine;
4. When the Government successfully killed the US Citizen, using a military drone strike, in a Country the US was not authorized to use the Use of Force (under International Law)...no one cared because the individual was Muslim and the Government assured us this was a guy with ties to Islamic terrorism. In fact, you can see in this article the such an attitude permeates all the way to the EFF, where one of EFF's Senior Staff Attorneys says he wouldn't have issue if Hammond had ties to Al-Qaida or Islamic State, but this is solely concerning to them because it is likely Anonymous;
5. Now the US Gov. has again extended their new found powers and now people are split...but what is really alarming is the people who think, well this guy was a piece of shit, so the Gov. got it right...no harm no foul.
This is not end of the World, sky is falling commentary, but wake up. It is never OK for any Government to have secret lists of any kind much less kill lists...and it is even more telling that the US Gov. refuses to disclose the lists (in full, certainly some lists are public) or the criteria/process.
Step 2: Evolve the definition of the world "terrorist" behind the scenes.
We are seeing similar word play in Canada as the word "terrorist" evolves into "radicalized". Of important utility to our government as they attempt to shift public perception of environmentalists over to "radical" or "extreme" due to the prominence of our oil industry. With success expect these sorts of labels to be slowly painted over our Native population in some old fashioned establishment racism.
I hugely admire his morals, and that he lives his life by them so completely. And I agree with a lot of them. But, at least from the vague impression I have based off old (and no-doubt memory-distorted) conversations with him, mainly on IRC, and on news reports in the last couple of years, I'm not too sure "possible terrorist" isn't a fitting label for him. He's always wanted to fight against big chunks of society.
As far as I know he's never committed or planned to commit any violent crime, but his personality and view of the world make me think that he'd be willing to if he thought there was a greater good to come from it. The first thing he was caught and locked up for was stealing 1000s of credit cards from a right-wing website and using them - if I remember correctly, to donate to a charity. Those people who suffered at the hands of his credit card fraud were people he didn't know, but was willing to justify it morally in that they had donated or purchased something from this right wing website. And yes it was a very right-wing site, it was very much within the norms of the American political spectrum, it's not like they were neo-nazis or the KKK.
Maybe I'm doing him a disservice, and maybe the FBI were just abusing terrorism laws to crack down on (relatively-)innocent hackers. But the truth is that if I were in their shoes, Jeremy Hammond would scare me as much as the next plane from Al-Queda.
(And while on the subject of surveillance... I created a fake account from Tor to write this. Can't imagine anyone would really care about my saying I knew him, hell I'm 99% sure he wouldn't even remember my name, but I'd rather not make that tie if it hasn't already been made.)
Some guy fucking with you, is what our government has descended to.
A paramilitary organization may or may not use tactics of terror, and even if they do, their tactics may be a small part of why they are harmful and relevant.
Under this construct, we can talk about cartels, IS/ISIL, Al Qaeda, IRA, and so on.
And you know how in every large forum, when someone talks about the definition of terrorism, inevitably states also get pulled into the discussion, such as the actions of the US / Russia / China? That's because terrorism is an over-inclusive lens of discussion or perception, which means it requires "discretion" to use the term. It genuinely is wishy-washy.
DO NOT ADVISE THIS INDIVIDUAL THAT THEY MAY BE ON A TERRORIST WATCHLIST. CONTACT THE TERRORIST SCREENING CENTER AT [REDACTED] DURING THIS ENCOUNTER. IF THIS WOULD EXTEND THE SCOPE OR DURATION OF THE ENCOUNTER, CONTACT THE TSC IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER. IF YOU ARE A BORDER PATROL OFFICER, IMMEDIATELY CALL THE NTC. ATTEMPT TO OBTAIN SUFFICIENT IDENTIFYING INFORMATION DURING THE ENCOUNTER, WITHOUT OTHERWISE EXTENDING THE SCOPE OR DURATION OF THE ENCOUNTER, TO ASSIST THE TSC IN DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT THE NAME OR IDENTIFIER(S) YOU QUERIED BELONGS TO AN INDIVIDUAL IDENTIFIED AS HAVING POSSIBLE TIES WITH TERRORISM. DO NOT DETAIN OR ARREST THIS INDIVIDUAL UNLESS THERE IS EVIDENCE OF A VIOLATION OF FEDERAL, STATE, OR LOCAL STATUTE(S).
First, this looks like boilerplate text. If so, "DO NOT ADVISE..." means, in general, "do not advise anyone on a terrorist watchlist that they are on the watchlist". That text would make sense if, for instance, this is what an LEO sees on their MDT screen when they look up someone's identity. Counterterrorist workers want to collect information from LEOs, so they need to flag people to get reports --- but they don't want that to come at the expense of tipping off terrorism subjects that they're under investigation. That's a warning that might make a lot of public policy sense when the FBI is tracking Abdul Kadir and his plot to blow up JFK, but not as much sense for Jeremy Hammond.
The all-caps text and awkward structure of the prose sort of suggests that's what this is: the stuff that shows up on the cop's MDT screen when they run someone's identity and they've been flagged.
Second, each of the three paragraphs in this notice to LEOs directs the officer not to detain the subject based on the notice. Presumably that's because doing so can generate evidence that will then be excluded at trial, because merely being on a watchlist does not provide the police with probable cause to search or arrest.
Finally, people should remember that while our immediate association to the word "terrorism" is 9/11 and Islamist militants, the FBI tracks a pretty broad range of domestic terrorist groups --- including parts of the militia movement, radical animal rights groups, white supremacist groups, and "anarchist extremists", a category they surely didn't make up for Hammond, but which Hammond could easily have fallen into.
(In case it needs saying, while it may once have been the case in the '60s and '70s that there were radical anarchist groups that merited special tracking at a national level, I do not think the "anarchist extremists" of 2015 --- even the ones who try to scare the horses the mounted police are riding at the NATO protests --- qualify as "terrorists". The separatist militia movement, though? I'm glad we're calling them what they are.)
> A decade ago I knew Jeremy, a very little. Not enough to be particularly interesting even then, yet alone now, and I haven't spoken to him since he went to jail for the first time (I think around 2005).
> (And while on the subject of surveillance... I created a fake account from Tor to write this. Can't imagine anyone would really care about my saying I knew him, hell I'm 99% sure he wouldn't even remember my name, but I'd rather not make that tie if it hasn't already been made.)
I think this illustrates the real concern a lot of people may have over this story than the hair-splitting semantics about defining the word "terrorist".
How do we know who's labeled a terrorist and who isn't?
What if we're associated with someone on a terror watch list without knowing this?
What if you're on a watch list and don't know it?
What recourse do any of us have?
"He tried to beat up an old man in a restaurant"? Really? When was that? Because the closest I know of was the David Irving incident, where he protested the speaking event of a holocaust denier at a restaurant, and one person in the group (not Hammond) accidentally hit an unrelated patron with a bottle. They never tried to "beat up" anyone. And "he's threatened many people with physical harm"? Again, where are you getting these ridiculous statements from?
Your claim that he's "been to prison multiple times" is particularly laughable. He's been arrested multiple times. So had Martin Luther King Jr. and pretty much every civil rights activist I know of, along with plenty of the anti-war protesters in the 2000s, Occupy protesters in the 2010s, and hell, members of congress and mayors I know of. Are they all "terrorists"? Hammond has only been to prison for the hacking charges. Not every arrest means you land in prison, and assuming that it does is insanely presumptuous.
"And he's involved with the hacking and leaking of private and public information, basically to cause damage to the federal government, capitalistic entities and individuals." He leaked information he thought should be public. It was illegal, and a lot of people (most?) agree that it should be. But how was this significantly different than blacks doing illegal sit-ins at segregated restaurants during the civil rights movement, other than the former offending your personal values this time? Just because something is criminal and political doesn't make it "terrorism," as much as law enforcement and prosecutors would like you to believe otherwise.
[correction: He's actually been to prison once before this, for another hacking incident.]
It may not seem like terrorism in the typical sense you think, but disrupting computer systems randomly and maliciously is a type of terrorism.
I think it is perfectly reasonable to consider this particular individual a type of terrorist based on his actions. ( see other comments about his additional violent actions and suggestions )
If you think you can go around doing whatever you want with computers, and not have the government add you to a number of lists, then you are in some serious denial.
An alternative example: I don't hack random people, nor do I advocate violence, but I recently purchased some aluminum powder and red iron oxide off the internet. If I was added to the watchlist just for purchasing those substances, then -that- would be much more ridiculous.
To fix its business problems and speed up its transformation, next week about 26 percent of IBMs employees will be getting phone calls from their managers. A few hours later a package will appear on their doorsteps with all the paperwork. Project Chrome will hit many of the worldwide services operations. The USA will be hit hard, but so will other locations. IBMs contractors can expect regular furloughs in 2015. One in four IBMers reading this column will probably start looking for a new job next week. Those employees will all be gone by the end of February.
Now he's trying to spin that he never said "layoffs". Not sure why the IEEE is still trusting him.
Except as an employer.
One hypothesis... some of the IBM managers who were commenting on that story now realize Cringely was at least partly right?
But what a contrast between Apple and IBM!!!
They made a deal with Microsoft for DOS, but didn't make the deal exclusive so Microsoft sold their own version of DOS to the PC Cloners.
IBM made the PS/2 series with Microchannel as Clone Killers. VGA was a better video, and Creative Labs had the Sound Blaster for better audio. IBM's Microchannel flopped because people wanted to still use their ISA cards. IBM had OS/2 and Microsoft had their own version of OS/2 and Windows, and Microsoft took their OS/2 NT 3.0 and made Windows NT 3.1 out of it and stabbed IBM in the back for a second time.
IBM sold their printer line to Lexmark, and their PC X86/X64 line to Lenovo, IBM didn't know how to turn a profit on them.
When IBM couldn't supply the PowerPC chips to Apple for their Macintosh line, because IBM was making PowerPC chips for video game consoles as a priority, Apple switched to Intel chips. Then later video game consoles switched to Intel or AMD chips. IBM open sourced their PowerPC chips eventually.
IBM bought out Lotus and basically ran it into the ground and let Excel replace Lotus 123, and Lotus Smartsuite was never updated to compete with Microsoft Office and for modern Windows systems so it fell away and IBM forked OpenOffice.Org to make Lotus Symphony. That also went nowhere.
IBM still earns money from mainframes and contract support. I think IBM got into Linux and Java contracting as well.
But IBM has changed over the decades and it is not the same company it once was. It fell into a trap of maximizing shareholder values rather than making the customer experience a better one like Apple did. Microsoft also suffers from the same sort of thing that IBM does which explains why Microsoft Surface sales tanked.
IBM needs a big reboot, and to focus on making the customer experience better. Mobile apps is an area they could focus on, make the IBM Cloud and then make IBM Lotus Symphony for iOS and Android and store the documents on the IBM Cloud and offer subscriptions for more storage. They should also make Lotus Domino and Lotus Notes for mobile devices, and make a set of developer tools to make Android and iOS apps easier to program.
It seems to be lane-keeping plus radar cruise control, plus hype. All the major auto manufacturers have lane-keeping and cruise control working, and some are shipping it. It's good enough to work in most situations on freeways. Most. The auto manufacturers are reluctant to let customers use it as a full autopilot. The basic technology doesn't have enough situational awareness.
Here's what Mercedes has right now:
(Turn up the video resolution and read the displays. Messages include "lateral effort from planning too high", "Timeout from ... radar", "Planning timeout ... steer", "Curvature from planning too high".)
Cruise is hyping their system as a full driver-can-do-something-else autopilot. The major manufacturers, all of whom are painfully familiar with liability claims, aren't ready to go that far. Their systems have features which force the human driver to stay reasonably alert. Cruise is app and web people, not real-time and avionics people. This is worrisome.
In autonomous driving marketing, Volvo is the current leader: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42E-tF-6PWU
We license drivers now. It seems clear that software should have to pass at least the same bar.
Unfortunately everytime it is raised it ends up being a discussion on the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of regulation.
My view is that Google's version of a self driving car may be perfect, but I'm unconvinced that "vendor modifications" (to steal a term from the Android world) will always be as well-coded.
What would an appropriate regulation/certification/licensing regime look like? How are updates handled? Are users allowed to modify the software themselves (with or without re-certifying?)
Can't wait to migrate everything over to Connect instead.
- a site might offer to login via Facebook, but I'm afraid to in case my friends' Facebook news feeds get spammed.
- I want to offer an easy login for my users, but which OAuth provider do I pick? Which OAuth, OpenId thing am I supposed to use? They all look the same! But different!
using CUDA # define a kernel @kernel function kernel_vadd(a, b, c) i = blockId_x() + (threadId_x()-1) * numBlocks_x() c[i] = a[i] + b[i] end # create some data dims = (3, 4) a = round(rand(Float32, dims) * 100) b = round(rand(Float32, dims) * 100) c = Array(Float32, dims) # execute! @cuda kernel_vadd(CuIn(a), CuIn(b), CuOut(c)) # verify @show a+b == c
When working in julia, what are the benefits of tying oneself to CUDA (and not running accelerated on on-die graphics or on amd gpus) -- or doesn't nvidia work reliably/well with opencl?
- Spindle is a collection of scripts that's used to build the 'official' Raspbian images. It's hardly stripped-down as-is, and far from my favorite rootfs building strategy, but is a starting point: https://github.com/asb/spindle
- Yocto / OpenEmbedded recipes are available for truly stripped-down build possibilities. Here's a random blog post specific to RPi: https://delog.wordpress.com/2014/09/16/embedded-linux-system...
- The resin.io folks are trying to do "docker for embedded devices", with RPi as one of the initial targets. They have a pre-built rootfs that pulls your docker images via their (proprietary) cloud service. https://resin.io/
Currently investigating image processing and ANPR using OpenCV.
For comparison, my ubuntu VM is under 1.5G, and that's not been a "really basic" install even when it was first created.
[EDIT] Thanks, it's the whole disk partition image, not the distro itself.
By comparison, I know CubieBoard has accelerated crypto but I don't want to switch horses half way, so to speak.
There's Snappy Core, but to be honest I don't want to run that on a Pi just yet.
Mainline wasn't that far behind but uses bcm2835 instead of bcm2708. That might change/need an update now - not sure? Will find out in a few days!
You can see a public version of the Unconscious Bias training on the Google Ventures video library: https://www.gv.com/lib/unconscious-bias-at-work