jkeisling/hacker-news-corpus-2007-2022 huggingface dataset:
The best page-turner C# book I have ever read is "C# 4.0 in a Nutshell." This book comes from the guys who developed the awesome LINQPad. The book is filled with awesome nuggets and examples that were totally new to me. A lot of .NET books just read like msdn documentation. This is not one of them.

http://www.albahari.com/nutshell/
I would just make it a lighter shade, but not as light as a <= 0 score comment. Those happen to be hard to read.

Maybe you could give the option for the user to set their own CSS values for read and unread.
I thought it was just some odd stream-of-consciousness piece :)
Cool idea! I'd just have to figure out where to get that new colour, since now it's the same as the one you defined in your settings.
I couldn't find the phrase "number sentence" on the Common Core standards website, no idea where that comes from. Possibly from Pearson Education inc themselves?

Here are a couple of examples from the standards themselves:

> Apply properties of operations as strategies to add and subtract. Examples: If 8 + 3 = 11 is known, then 3 + 8 = 11 is also known. (Commutative property of addition.) To add 2 + 6 + 4, the second two numbers can be added to make a ten, so 2 + 6 + 4 = 2 + 10 = 12. (Associative property of addition.)

http://www.corestandards.org/Math/Content/1/OA/B/3/

This one seems to be leading to lots of "why are they asking this" questions:

> Understand subtraction as an unknown-addend problem. For example, subtract 10 – 8 by finding the number that makes 10 when added to 8.

http://www.corestandards.org/Math/Content/1/OA/B/4/

The confusion seems to be the transition from "understand the relationship between these two things" (what the standards ask for) and "you must do all subtraction in this weird way" (which seems to be how some people interpret the standards).
How is that possible when they allow you to share passwords with other people?
It seems odd to teach critical thinking with a stack of pre-printed worksheets that are the same for every student.

The infrastructure is not in place to teach those concepts successfully. The question "explain why ancient calendars used 60-day units" is no more elucidative than "explain why a week has 7 days" or "explain why the French Republican Calendar and the International Fixed Calendar failed to survive" or "meditate for 2 hours on the number 60".

I am saying unequivocally that it is bad to teach math that way. A kid does not have enough pre-existing knowledge of any ancient calendars for that association to help rather than confuse. If you're going to do that sort of thing, you have to tie into something that all kids at that age already know about. So really, you can only count on the stuff they have already been taught in school.

I don't recall, exactly, when I was taught about ancient calendars in school. Oh, wait, yes I do--it was never. I do recall someone asking once why a circle had 360 degrees in it, and the answer was, "It's essentially an arbitrary convention; we'll always be using radians in this class anyway."

While the high-level goals of the curriculum may be pedagogically sound, by the time that the course materials make it down to the classroom level, the original intent has been thoroughly diluted by the people trying to implement them.
I typically reply with, "quarter-mil." Then wait. Typically they will respond with something that hints to their budget so I can give a more informed number. My initial number is high enough that they know I'm not being serious, but opens up the number discussion.
For installation, are you planning on using one of the existing project like DockerUI[1] or Shipyard[2]?

1: https://github.com/crosbymichael/dockerui
2: https://github.com/ehazlett/shipyard
Just curious, what are the protocols/guidelines of the UN in case chemical weapons are actually used by any country? What can the possible outcomes/sanctions be in case they are found guilty of this?
> While I agree that the interface looks strikingly similar (or maybe even just exactly the same), I think the intentions are not to evil. How can libre software have evil intentions?

It is not evil, it just stupid. Lots of effort now is wasted because they made the stupid mistake to use illegitimate assets. And of course stupidity does not absolve responsibility.

> And, in the end, isn't that why we have libre software at all? We want to have control over the software, instead of the software having control over us, right?

That is exactly why it is so important to do these sorts of things by the book. By crossing the line authors of this project gave away large chunk of the control they (and us by extension) had.
I don't think they're saying anything in particular. The conclusions you take from it are yours.
Actually, unless I'm severely mistaken, most people managed the get laid over the last tens of thousands of years, but they're mostly terrible at understanding human and relationships. I've seen too many relatives, elders and generally people around me making one too many mistakes -- some even seems to do everything wrong. And I'm rather scared of that.

"Getting laid" is definitely a skill by itself, but I disagree whether it has any relations with understanding human beings at large.
The best way to do this is through someone that knows your work intimately and works at Google. On the referral form is a question for "How well do you know this person?", and if I submit a resume, I'm going to answer truthfully and say "Not at all". This will give you a slight bonus over submitting a resume "over the transom", but nowhere near as much as if you can get someone who says "I worked with this person for X years, he's awesome, definitely hire him".

If you don't know anyone that can give you that sort of recommendation, shoot me an email (my address is in my profile) with your resume attached, and I'll submit it for you. I'll also need to know which position you're applying for (from the external job application site - though the referral form actually has slightly different titles), and which location you want to work at.
I should clarify: I greatly simplified what happened.

At the time, I was a law student assisting a lawyer in a medical malpractice case. The doctor threatened to make negative statements about my moral character to the bar association in what I assume was an attempt to prevent my admission to the bar.

On its own, that would not have been enough to get him suspended. However, it was the final straw, and it was the straw the board chose to mention when they suspended him. I always thought it was weird that they went with that as opposed to the crap he'd put his patients through.
aka How to Threaten Lawyers Handling You.
What if your iphone/android device helped you manage your private key?

A website could send a push-notification to your phone. You as a user would then have to say "Yes Its me logging in" and voila your in.
COBRA's not the only advantage of employment. Unemployment, too.

Contractors generally aren't eligible. Laid off employees are.
I remember reading somewhere that one of the online tax preparation applications (Turbo Tax I think) actually has a superfluous "progress page" so that people will value/trust the results more.

EDIT: Found the source, http://businessofsoftware.org/video_09_dnorman.aspx

at 52:30

Don Norman discussing delays they put in some H&R block tax preparation software for the emotional benefit of the users.
Touch é. After looking at it, I realize I was thinking of just Title I of the DMCA being the whole thing. You are totally right about Title II & III (Title IV boat vessel hulls... heh)!

Now that I'm better informed... (thanks!) I change my position to repeal of Title I of the DMCA in its entirety, not the entire DMCA.
Cool idea, though I kept experiencing something akin to the uncanny valley, where it was "close enough" to a shell that it really bothered me that it didn't work as expected :)

Eg I immediately tried to use tab-completion (as have many others) only to land in the URL field. Then I tried to use "less" to read the file, only to have that not work. Finally had to look up the help.

I guess the UX lesson here is if you're going to emulate a really familiar interface, you have to do it fully or otherwise people's muscle memory is going to lead them astray.

Don't get me wrong, cool technical idea.
I think you're missing the point.

If someone comes at me, attempting to persuade me that their side is the right one, but their persuasion style is to be adversarial and say I'm a shithead if I don't pick their side, I am more likely to reject their side.

This has little to do with the "facts are stronger" argument. I agree that many people do not pay attention to objective facts, and instead make decisions based on emotional factors. And that's exactly what would be happening here: this type of adversarial argument would give me a bad feeling, and I would reject it.

Beyond that, you can still make emotional arguments that use facts as their foundation. I would respond much better to something like "75% of your co-workers have shit wages, and a union can help them get fair pay; don't you want the best for your colleagues?" That sort of argument isn't all positive, as it tries to make the other person feel guilty, but it's a much better argument than "if you don't want to join the union you're an asshole".

> I think it's fairly naive to think that "we developed [our opinions regarding unions] over time by deciding on the arguments advanced," as though it were always a conscious process or that a broadly fair view of unions was widely disseminated with which to make an informed decision.

I don't think anyone's claiming it's a rational, conscious process. Very much of it can be emotional and subconscious. But the result is still the same: if you tell me that I have to "support the union or else", I will -- consciously and rationally, or subconsciously and emotionally: it doesn't matter -- gradually develop a negative opinion about unions.

I think this is the trap a lot of people (myself included, sometimes) fall into: they want people to evaluate their arguments on their terms, how they themselves would evaluate them if they were the recipient of them. But that's not how it works. People evaluate arguments in their own way (regardless of whether the argument is intended to evoke a rational or emotional response). If you want to make an argument, you need to focus on outcomes, not on your own personal preferences as to how things should turn out. Tailor your argument to the recipient. Sure, for some people the "you're either for us or against us" type argument might be the most effective. But it's not for everyone, and it can alienate people as well.
I stand corrected. I forgot that!
In that situation you have nothing but deferred consumption (savings) accrued in your corporate bank account. You're just soaking currency out of the economy. It's fine if none of that money is taxed because it's not moving. As soon as you use it, it's taxed.
Man, there's a lot of sympathy for criminals in this thread. While there are always marginal cases that pull at the heart strings, generally speaking I don't actually care that rapists are having a bad time of it in prison. I genuinely don't. And that ambivalence extends to other criminal categories too. Usually this conversation devolves into a conversation around drug prosecutions and what many people see as excessive penalties. Historically, my answer has been that I favor drug legalization (meaning that's not so much a conversation about prisons sucking too much, but rather whether we're enforcing the right laws). But I have to admit I've grown more skeptical of legalization as I've seen what rampant drug use has done to west coast cities. Prison sentences, particularly uncomfortable ones, do in fact serve to deter crime, even if not all of it.
I'd like to better understand what your repulsion is against corporations.

What are the state-given benefits that they get, and other entities have no access to?

what makes them worse than say an LLP or an LP?
> Thomas said "The majority can not square it's fundamentally flawed fair-use analysis with a finding that declaring code is copyrightable".

Which is obviously false. A fair use analysis can -only- take place if the assumption is the code is copyrightable

You are not disputing Thomas's point; you are agreeing with it. Thomas's point was exactly that, before even embarking on a fair use analysis, the Court should have first decided the question of whether the code was copyrightable. In the absence of a finding that the code was copyrightable, fair use analysis indeed makes no sense.

The "cannot square" part of Thomas's statement is just saying that the reason the majority did not even attempt to decide the question of whether the code was copyrightable was that the reasoning they would have had to use in order to find that it was copyrightable--which they would have had to do to even embark on a fair use analysis--would also have completely invalidated the reasoning they used to decide that Google's use was fair use. In other words, they are simply ignoring a glaring inconsistency in their position.

A decision that the code was not copyrightable in the first place would have been consistent, but the Court did not do that. A decision that the code was copyrightable and Google's use was not fair use would have been consistent, but the Court did not do that either. Instead, Thomas is saying, the Court decided that Google's use was fair use, on grounds that are inconsistent with the code even being copyrightable at all. As much as I hate to side with Oracle, I have to agree with Thomas on this point. The Court should either have ruled explicitly that the code was not copyrightable at all, or should have refused to let Google get away with what is obviously not fair use if the code is copyrightable.

> Thomas' argument, if followed, would either have led to this same decision, or would make the opposite point he was trying to make.

No, Thomas's argument, if followed, would end up with the opposite decision from the one the Court made: that Google's use was not fair use and that the decision below should have been affirmed, not reversed.
> There's a 100% chance of some sort of conflict between the US and China over Taiwan and dominance over the Western Pacific.

Actually, there is a 100% chance of a Russia/USA war. I'm highly doubtful of a China/USA one. Russia and the USA have thousands of nuclear war heads (in the ~6.000) while China has only 300. Least China has been making nuclear bombs secretly, they are at a massive disadvantage in a nuclear war with the USA.

That should explain why USA war efforts have been focused on Russia. Once the US tackles Russia, it'll have militaristic supremacy and carry on establishing its world order.
The key thing is they don't want want people working for them badmouthing the company. I'm sure they view a few million a year in settlements instead of the bad PR of letting it continue, and at such a high level as these people were working at.

Also making a person's life miserable at work is something a person can easily document over a year or two and then bring that lawsuit, so that's not a great option either.
Hm, that seems kind of strange to me--while it might legally be considered unemployed, would these employees not have health-insurance paid by their employer and receive retirement compensation?
inspiring story. Thanks for sharing this. Well I am a software engineer but the idea that I have is business idea that requires only well-understood technology, so yeah the chance of me fooling myself is pretty high. I will need to check up about the IP issues though.
Google is all about search quality, so they have a huge motivation to fight spam. It's getting worse now because the mail spam is mostly a solved problem[1] and the web has became the new battlefront.

[1] I haven't got a single spam in my Gmail inbox for ages, and other spam filters are pretty good as well.
I agree, but easy to use != simple. For instance, I consider rails to be easy to use, but not simple. :-)
Chrome is a closed-source browser with a rigid failure of a UI and a sync feature that hands over all my bookmarks and history to Google. I can't even move the buttons around -- what a joke. How any privacy-conscious person can use Chrome is beyond me.
What kind of benefits would we expect a magical solution to the inefficiency of the broadband market to provide as compared to what a comprehensive net neutrality law would provide? Or, to put it another way, if we get a good net neutrality law passed, what techniques are left for the cable/dsl duopoly screw us with? We already have laws against price fixing, so if those are enforced in addition to net neutrality, most consumers would get pretty close to the quality of service they would get out of a properly competitive market. I would be wary of the government trying to indirectly prevent the shady practices net neutrality would outlaw --- it could too easily end up providing screwed up incentives the way agricultural subsidies do.
Exactly. I find the reason most startups have trouble hiring is that they're expecting to nab these people in their late 20s with loads of experience for the price of someone fresh out of college, wet behind the ears and bright-eyed and bushy-tailed.
It's a very complex thing for people to have to go through, organizing a wedding, so anything you could do to simplify the whole process would help. Most websites do this by aggregating useful information, but there are still ways to do this better (show me all the venues suitable for 130 guests within a 30 minute drive from church X, for example). Perhaps also it would be good to get customer reviews of venues, tripadviser-style. People want to know who will go the extra mile for them on the big day.

You're starting from the feeling that existing sites are cumbersome. Do you think this is a problem? They are presumably packed with information. Could you present the same information more cleanly, or dedicate your site to a certain kind of information?

Are you married yourself? If not, I would talk to a bunch of people who are to find out what they found difficult organizing it all. You might get some insights that way.
Learn whatever looks fun to you. When it stops being fun, repeat process.

I recommend Forth at least for the ideas. It's interesting because its a language that avoids needing a lexer, parser, or optimizer. It has the most beautiful ideas I've seen since I found Lisp.
Quote:

it lacks support for arrays and for loops

Wow. They still call it Javascript?

Could you please point at the docs, to see what kind of language they offer? Thanks!
Theoretically, yes. But practically, if too many people default, they can't. As with recent home mortgage default levels.
hasnt for me, so far ... been running three heavily written to mongo installs for more than a month...
I'll help you- sounds like fun
A small group of people are making an item by hand. If 4-6 weeks is too long for you, you shouldn't order the item. Sorry, not everything is sitting in a storehouse waiting for your order.

That's your decision as a customer, just like it's the sellers decision as a merchant. Complaining to google checkout because the terms of the deal that were explicitly stated are going according to plan is asinine. I don't care who has ADHD, grow the fuck up.
I upgraded to WP2 early and had to wait for a bunch of plugins to catch up. Figure I'll wait for the few plugins (4 or 5 of them) to release WP3 support before I make the move.
Don't forget:

http://daserste.ndr.de/panorama/xkeyscorerules100.txt

/*
These variables define terms and websites relating to the TAILs (The Amnesic
Incognito Live System) software program, a comsec mechanism advocated by
extremists on extremist forums.
*/
That isn't a bad idea, but keep in mind, there is always a usability aspect (I'll just call it the programmer computer interface problem) of "what makes a programming language popular". For example, consider PL/I: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PL/I#Implementation_issues

When people see for example, * or + (or a, b, c). They may have some preassumptions about some implied associativity from arithmetic (depending on what they are taught and what level of math they are at), that may be hard to break. If you have learned some college (abstract) algebra, it may mean something quite different. How about the = sign? Of course, a, b, c may be meaningless to someone who is not a native latin-1 speaker either. My point I guess is that these are just matters of convention, there is just some implied commutativity or associativity usually implied, but this is all arbitrary.

Now, one intereting "quirk" with with PL/I was that certain things looked similar "to what people were used to" (relative to say other PL/I code, or FORTRAN or COBAL), but worked differently even in some small spatial area on a screen (two blocks of nearby code in some editor). For example, if the programmer's eye saw a block of code, reflexively, depending on their experience they may be able to predict what the result of the computation could do. PL/I was an interesting experiment because of the lack of reserved keywords. This made it very expressive but very hard to understand code in context. For example, in pseudo PL/I: foo = 1; = = 2; bar 2 + foo. You are basically changing the grammatical syntax of the language in 3 lines.

But on the other hand, everything is just a symbol and this may not be completely unusual. Consider the diversity of the world's languages and how they are written and how meaning is derived. Natural language grammars may connotate very different representations and transformations, but people learn because they see enough examples. Consider for the differences between Han, Brahmic scripts, Arabic BiDi, various African scripts, Cuneiform, Emoji, whatever. Perhaps all computer languages are "overfit" due to for example, Chomsky's ideas and BNF (keep in mind Chomsky's ideas about morphology were quite different).

Now, let's consider mathematical notation. Depending on how much pure math (or say, mathematical physics or other sciences) you consider, there may be more and more semantic overhead with the conventions of mathematical notation, and people often historically just "cartesianize" and "euclidized" things for convenience because of lack of tooling (think of a sheet of paper metaphor, we've simply moved it over to a computer. it's a skewmorph). Clearly we have better computer graphics, so why haven't developer tools and languages changed along with it? Maybe with more immersive manipulation they will.
java -version AND java --version

Maybe because java was intended to run on multiple operating systems, although both look out of place on MS-DOS!
I think you mean to say "fully connected" in place of "feed-forward" when trying to draw a distinction with respect to "convolutional".
> Nike found themselves in the position of being associated with Satan

That's not necessarily it: if you don't enforce your trademarks you stand to lose them. Band-aid, dry ice, dumpster, escalator...
I initially thought GP was being overly hyperbolic, but after watching the video I can't say I fully disagree. It's not so much the animal studies aspect, but rather the fact that they used bluetooth via a mobile phone to connect to the monkey.

That aspect of connecting via bluetooth from a phone is most conventionally used to interact with replaceable commodities such as wireless speakers/headphones, but here it's being used to interact with a _live_ monkey. This framing somewhat gives the impression that this living being has been reduced to the status of a replaceable commodity, a mere peripheral that one might connect to via bluetooth.

I agree that given how much modern society relies on animal testing that it's not really a rational response - maybe this reaction could have been mitigated somewhat if they had connected to the monkey via a computer or more involved process rather than simply just the conventional bluetooth pairing flow on a phone.