jkeisling/hacker-news-corpus-2007-2022 huggingface dataset:
Do you have any numbers on Clojure vs. Scala adoption? The Clojure community is definitely vocal, but Scala has made a lot of successes also, and at this level of marketshare, it is difficult to say if they are equal, or if adoption is off by an order of magnitude. Scala in particular has done well in the systems community, oddly enough.
For one thing, SSH performance for large transfers is abysmal over high-latency links. SSH uses a small TCP window size because it was optimized for quick response, not bulk transfers. (After all, it was designed to be a remote shell protocol, not a generic file transfer protocol; scp and sftp were added after the fact.) And unfortunately you can't currently specify a different buffer size even if you wanted to.

More information can be found here: http://www.psc.edu/index.php/hpn-ssh
Your hundred year prediction is already more than a hundred years out of date. Welcome to 1880's Bialystok in not-yet-Poland, and the birth of Esperanto.

Here we are in 2015 and the one hundredth annual Esperanto Congress is coming.

The reasons approximately nobody speaks Esperanto now, are the same reasons nobody will speak your universal language in 2115.
The charitable view would be that they are simplifying the document by removing redundant information.

Of course the implication by the tweet is that they removed this claim because they added some mechanism for the client to turn over the keys.
> backed by literally nothing

It is the only thing the government accepts for tax payments. Given that you can be arrested for not paying your taxes it is "backed" by the barrel of a gun, a threat to your very being. In one sense this is the only real thing there is.
I think that unfortunately, when it comes to the public perception, that the movie Terminator did to robotics and AI what Jaws did to the Great White shark. This seems to have permeated western culture in a way that makes it very difficult to have much serious and honest discussion about the technology and I suspect is actively holding the field back. My perception is that in other countries, like Japan for example, they have a very different perspective on what these technologies can do for them and they seem to be much more embracing of it, rather than scared of it.

Both here and anywhere else the Boston Dynamics robots are shown off, half of the comments always come back to the "scary robots" that will take your jobs and murder your family. I wish we could hit a big reset button on how the public at large perceives robots because I personally think that there is a lot of benefit to be harvested here, for the true benefit of mankind.
Maybe. Though a bit of a different take, a lot of tribal communities care a lot about legacy (theirs, that of their forefathers, etc). That legacy is really what defines a tribe, and if a tribe loses its legacy, it risks falling apart. And if it falls apart, then it is vulnerable to predators eating its herds, tribes stealing members of its family, inability to find food / water. Legacy is more collective than fame (at least the modern, Western version of it), which is a lot more individualistic.

It's not so much fame as legacy. The fear of a legacy (or your ancestors or your lineage) being forgotten is very, very real.

(I am from the Middle East. Obviously centuries later here, but I still feel like legacy is a big cultural factor for most Arabs)
It still sounds a bit weird to me. If I need something, I will buy it unless I don't have cash for it. The concept of buying stuff just because I still have some spare cash in some bucket but I stop once bucket is empty feels so strange to me, some sort of forced self-check on compulsive buyers. If that's the case, I would rather look for solution in the root cause of such behavior rather than symptoms.

Maybe the motivation for some ordinary folks (that don't really need structured accounting, then it might be great) is different than mine. Or if I would be on a really tight budget combined with having to juggle tons of various mandatory expenses (household, kids, whatnot).
> The way to "beat" piracy is to consider it as a competitor...

I hope it's not too tangential, but I think of economics and politics the same way:

XYZ-ism is good you say? ABC-ism is bad? Sure, grow your XYZ-ism naturally, go for the bootstraps. If it's more awesome it should be more efficient and productive, people should choose it naturally, happily, and calmly in their own best interest without coercion or propaganda. But, of course, that never happens.
Hackernews comments were generally onboard with Twitter banning Trump for controversial tweets that can be considered as incitement.

As much as I like Sci-Hub, it is clearly a service that disregards and breaches copyright.

If you advocate for Twitter exercising a heavy hand on greyer areas (Trump), you shouldn’t be surprised when they do the same for clear breaches of their TOS/Laws (SciHub).

It scares me that these big tech companies are becoming arbitrators for what many people see. The worst part is that it is allowing the US oligarchy to further influence the rest of the world too.
Yeah, we see plenty of churn on smaller/newer accounts, but a good chunk of our customers, especially on the larger plans, have been with us for years. It's partly platform lock in, because it's probably a pain to switch, but I like to think it's also we solve a majority of their needs at a decent price and provide good support. So why would they switch? I think it also helps that we are generally targeting that small to medium size company. Or even smaller departments/teams within larger companies. So we're not subject to the whims of a C-suite that is looking to cut 5% off their budget every quarter.
You used the quote in reply to my statement

> Blaming individuals is very satisfying

I was not sure how you intended it, as you did not provide any other comment, so I went looking for the original context.

Here's how I understood the original context: Congress was looking for who to blame nuclear incidents on. Adm Rickover pointed out that for Thresher, very many of the responsible people in the production and development process changed multiple times during the process. He also pointed out that Congress, as the funding body still maintained some responsibility.

In the context of Boeing, I think it does apply, in the sense that the development project was faulty, albeit in a different way than the development of Thresher. It also applies in the fact that the funding body bears responsibility (Boeing shareholders and management). This is my interpretation. Everyone is free to make their own.
> the came (in the book) because they had the MicroSoft business plan: destroy any competition. (do unto others before they do unto you)

And why would anyone logically do unto anyone first? If you're not worried about people stealing your stuff (because it's so fantastically expensive to do that at interstellar distances), then there's really very little incentive to harm anyone.

The only thing I can think of is that you're worried another race might develop cheap enough FTL that they could then do an interstellar smash-and-grab, but compared to the time and expense of mounting your own campaign, it's probably faster and easier just to focus your resources on building your own FTL.
Subspace radio allows for faster than light communication.
This is interesting. I was going back and forth with Amy Hoy on twitter the other day about the trend (maybe I'm seeing one where there isn't) of doing a successful product or two and then turning around and "selling how you did it", which she's doing with a course, Rob Walling is doing with his micropreneur academy, and 37signals does it with their books.

I don't think there's anything wrong with that (indeed, I'm very happy with Rob's book and recommend it to people), but I'm also somehow glad to hear that you see more money and prospects in products than turning around and selling to people who want to emulate your success.
I think it's good of 37signals to interview someone who had a happy experience NOT following their "run a self-sustaining revenue-based business forever" mantra.
I am starting to think that the market analysis included in most business plans is somewhere between magic and pulled from thin air.

There's probably a lot of truth to that, but there are sources of information... you may just have to do some digging. For starters, the big analyst firms (Gartner Group, Forrester, IDC, etc.), do a lot of research on this stuff and publish reports and whitepapers that you can use. They do publish some information for free, but a lot of it is kinda pricey. You can also commission custom research / studies to answer specific questions. The problem is - as you might guess - this stuff isn't necessarily cheap.

Outside of those guys, there is market research you can do using information from the US Census Bureau, various State government agencies, and local / regional trade associations. You may have to extrapolate and make some guesses, but you can probably come up with something that's a little bit better than complete BFM / "pulled from thin air."

This book:

http://www.amazon.com/Successful-Business-Research-Straight-...

is fairly inexpensive and gives some useful - if basic - advice on doing preliminary market research.

Note that there are also smaller market research firms (sometimes as small as one individual) that you can hire to do custom market research. I've never used any of these outfits, so I can't really speak to how expensive or how effective they are. But I know they are out there.

You may also find some useful information by trawling through the "Market Sizing" and/or "Market Research" topics on Quora:

http://www.quora.com/Market-Sizing

http://www.quora.com/Market-Research
They will even ask you whether you want to immediately activate the device, you don't have to ask them. (They asked me and the three people in front of me when I picked up my iPad 2. By the way, no one wanted to activate the device immediately, no one bought Applecare and I think everyone except for me bought a cover.)

That tells me that Apple seems to have recognized the ridicoulosness of the whole activation procedure but has not yet been able to change anything about it.
if you are constantly in work-work-work mode, you don't get the chance to reflect, think about what you are actually doing and make good decisions.

I was just having this conversation with a coworker. He was describing a project he worked on last year where he put in 12 hour days for 6 months working on a collaboration and reporting tool for interdepartmental knowledge sharing. When it was done he went to present it to the department leaders, and it turned out that another department had been building the exact same tool.

I think if you are always so busy writing code and meeting deadlines, you don't have time to sit down, scope out requirements, and most importantly do some research to see if you can get the result with less effort. Just like when you're lost, the best thing to do is stop and ask for directions before driving around in circles.
Even worse, some people used to (don't know if many still do) set up a payout address on whatever mining pool they're using directly to an address on an exchange. Ouch.
There's a difference between blinding for purposes of protecting subject privacy and blinding for purposes of preventing experimenter bias.

In blind trials of new medications doctors can break the blinding at will (patent seems to be having an adverse reaction, was their treatment real or placebo ?) as long as they record having done it and exclude the subject from the final results.

If the scans were required to be anonymous for subject privacy, they wouldn't have kept the records needed to break the blinding.
From what I can tell, man-traps are only illegal in the US if they use deadly force.
They disappeared off the face of the earth about 5 years apart, but other than that, I can't tell too much of a difference. :)
That's what tripods are for.
Of course not. There are whole books on the subject: http://cg.scs.carleton.ca/~luc/rnbookindex.html
Could also do something like:
(reduce + (map face-value dice))
I'm a photographer, so I understand the point of the shot as it is, emotional draw and all, but if the point of his article is to show the resolution, it's the wrong shot to use.
Apparently these things are getting standardized:

"BS EN 50131-8:2009"
Alarm systems. Intrusion and hold-up systems. Security fog device/systems

And are supposed to be installed in a way that prevents "man traps".
Do you think the result of rolling two dice and adding them is random?
> Edit: I just realized that's your per-person figure. Mine is for two. That is quite expensive :(

$450 a month is definitely a lot by my standards, where/what do you tend to buy?

But comparing it to his $60/w, $240/m, isn't quite fair. His meal plan is for 6 meals at $10 a meal. Considering you'll want a meal everyday, that's $300 a month and that's just for dinner. If you add breakfast and lunch he's either paying as much or more than you.

$10 a meal is just crazy expensive for a cooked meal. If you look at recommended servings of say 100g of vegs, 100g of rice or potatoes, 100g of meat or fish, you're looking at about 30c, 10c and 60c. With seasoning, oils, onion, garlic etc, you're looking at a $1.50 meal. If you double the servings for example, and get more expensive ingredients, you'll be hard pressed to top $5. But again, a $2 meal is very doable, meaning you can do dinner for $100 a month ea-si-ly. Another $100 for breakfast (oatmeal with milk & a piece of fruit is a 0.5$ meal at most, or $15 a month) and lunch (make any sandwich, another piece of fruit, a salad) and some snacks here and there. It's hard to top $200, and this'll get you a really healthy 3-meal a day.

Curious how you spend $450. I mean don't get me wrong, I easily could, if you buy oatmeal with banana chips instead of oatmeal and a banana you pay $2 instead of $0.20, and you can get that 10x price increase for 'processed food' everywhere, but if I were planning my meals and cooking myself, $450 is really unnecessary.
Forced labor wages < market wages. If they were not, there would be no need for forced labor.

As for airport security not being done by soldiers, my mistake. I only visited Israel once, but I was under the impression the airport guys were IDF. I guess I'm misremembering the uniforms. Thanks for the correction.
I was a bit scared there, for a moment. My name is also Nicholas Carlson, so I was wondering how businessinsider was reading my facebook cookies and generating those wonderful screenshots.
He's describing something that was the biggest factor for me not deciding to go back to school. I came to Google and started working on search engine spam. I also periodically read papers on "Adversarial Information Retrieval" as it is called in the literature. Only a handful of the papers I read had useful ideas, and I don't think there's anything that can really be done to improve the situation. There are certain things you can't really research without access to the real thing. Information Retrieval is one of them, and I'd be equally skeptical of parallel computing research unless the university has a 1000 node cluster to work with.

This sucks for the world, because the research in these things that Google does doesn't really escape to advance the state of the art elsewhere.
If you were a member of Congress or a lobbyist for a security equipment manufacturer, you'd see high costs as a benefit, not a problem. As long as the cost would result in profits for a (relative) few. I think our government would gladly pay Israeli-level security costs - if it could spend it on machinery made in the USA, rather than on salaries and training.

It sounds to me like the Israelis are the ones that have a process and who are devoted to their manuals. Every horror story we hear about the TSA seems to involve TSA agents not having a clue how to behave like civilized people, let alone effective security officers, in even the most mundane situations.
This article is from 2009 and was submitted back to HN then - and had some insightful comments.

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1024850
If you were an Israeli Arab, do you think you'd feel the same way about the situation at Ben Gurion?
I see peers (coworkers who eventually moved on to other places) who make these strange leaps from Sr. Engineer to Director or CTO and I don't understand how they did it.

Really, the only thing you're lacking -- and I do not say this lightly, or mean this disparagingly -- is chutzpah.

The simple (and sad fact) is, that for the vast majority of these CTO/COO/CEO types, whether they happen to possess great talent, or not -- what happened to catapult them through the glass ceiling into that "leadership" role was one of two things: (1) they were already working in an organization for some time and there was suddenly a vacuum, a great need for someone to "pick up the reins", and the were seen as "the only one in the room"; or (2) they were simply very brash, and repeatedly but persistently insinuated themselves into the "technologist, visionary, co-founder, (what have you)" role and eventually (perhaps with the help of a thick skin and/or immunity from the crushing weight of self-doubt that afflicts most normal, healthy people I know) it finally stuck -- someone finally believed them, and they got that brass ring -- that CTO job in their 20s, million-dollar funding for their company, speaking gigs at TED, whatever.

What I vastly prefer working with managers/principals in the first category, I find the latter path to "greatness" is far more common. I don't mean to belittle these kinds of characteristics, or to say charisma and the ability to sell one's self isn't important, or anything like that. But it does seem is that part of what keeps (very good) engineers in that "worker thread" category, it seems, has (very sadly) a lot to do with what made them good engineers in the first place -- the ability to stay humble, stay focused on just being really excellent at what they do, not for the vanity (or the outsize paycheck) but simply for the sake of excellence itself -- and above all, not taking themselves too seriously.
That book doesn't touch any nondeterministic behavior at all. So, the nondeterministic extension of the Church-Turing Thesis is absolutely irrelevant here. Your other cited "developments" seem senseful only in your personal universe.
One way streets.

Killing traffic is good.
That's a ridiculous proposal. Imagine the cost of creating a whole secondary road network above the current road network and the extra spaces needed for ramps up and down the elevated cycleway. This is something you can do in very special circumstances, but nowhere close to a general solution.
It's not the content of the message I take issue with, but the delivery. You seem to be posing this salient point in plaintive opposition. I think you could have raised the issues without the negativity, as I don't think the OP had the intention to paper over the very real issues of the country but provide an honest perspective.
They do get paid well. Policing is generally a family income type job. Those are increasingly difficult to come by.

Good policing = a better society to live in.

Regarding risks:

A return to robust and inclusive deescalation and related situational awareness, people awareness training can pack a big punch, as can having multiple avenues of response.

Perhaps that flying high person is better met by others, not necessarily police.

We can, and should, improve on the currently poor balance of income vs cost and risk exposure. Lots of ways to that, and putting a bunch of people to work cleaning up, repairing and enhancing our infrastructure would be top of my list.

Stronger requirements for police to be from and or parr of the community they police can cut a lot of risk too. This also can improve reward as well as respect and consideration. All these things go a long way.

Frankly, we could pay them more and invest in them more and get better policing as well as a lower risk for those police.

In my town, we just hired new officers. The difference between them and the ones either leaving or who are long into their careers is striking.

The training and overall readiness for all aspects of the job are not so well aligned as they have been in the past.

Better policy = lower risk too. The war on drugs has been particularly brutal all around. It would be great to see those risks taken for better, more mutually agreed upon rewards.

In simple terms: policing is an investment that can deliver great returns

Or... not, and a lot of that is on us, as a people, as it is on the officers.

Some people, well adapted to, or whose basic nature aligns with the job may feel very differently about what "upside" means too.

You are not fundementally wrong. It can range from OK to pretty grim.

A lot can be done. We need to have police people open to it, educating people as much as we ourselves need to be open to it, educating people.

The basic want of a better, safer, appropriately secure, helpful place to live is reason to sign up just as thuggery can be.

We can work on that too. Hiring criteria, bigger and more inclusive, robust training is a big part of seeing policing improve.
These people believe they’re lucky to work at a place like Facebook, and after reading some of these asinine comments, I'm inclined to agree.

The idea that they shit in the pool and get the swimmers to defend them sounds crazy, but people do defend Facebook’s doo-doo, and it makes sense that if you’re already covered in shit, it’s probably easier to pay people like this to walk around with shit all over themselves and say with a straight face “Apple should pay for our shit” than I ever thought.
Wow, the blatant hypocrisy of this comment. Imagine some cause or topic in your local government that you're passionate about and someone saying, "hey, let's just do what we want because f*ck what the other side thinks".

If you don't like that a group of people have more perceived power than you in your local government then find a way to fix it ethically. Don't bypass local democracy just because you think it's easier to take a shortcut.
1 + 2 are the same. It’s possible they won’t respond. Treat that as the end of the loop iteration; change tactics and try again.

What appeals to you about your MVP is likely not what will appeal to your target market, unless they are you. In which case, you should know where they hang out!

Marketing and value prop refinement is hard. You have to nail it, and nail how you talk about it. 80% won’t cut it - spend the time to refine by putting it out there.
One proposed tactic has been that either cops need to hold individual "malpractice" insurance (like doctors) or that settlements need to come out of the union retirement fund.
Ehh, was watching Youtude videos on Siggraph animation. One thing led to another, going down the rabbit hole of math videos.
I was going to add that consulting a nonprofit (like the Nature Conservancy) would be a good idea as well. But why either or? If I were undertaking a project as large as reforesting several hundred acres of land, I’d want to consult as many sources as possible. USDA has field offices in almost every county, not to mention loan (including easy-to-qualify-for microloans of <$50K) and payment programs to help with capital and expenses.

Genuine question—are “tightly-packed monocultures” that are recurrently harvested optimal (from a carbon removal perspective) under some conditions? Similarly, if you inherit a mature forest, is it optimal to harvest some portion of it so that new trees can absorb carbon?
The way Cygwin is implemented is a bit different from what I mean. My thinking is a shell that doesn't even try to be binary-compatible, it only tries to be "UI"-compatible
What a title. I'd expect the ieee to be more serious than this.