jkeisling/hacker-news-corpus-2007-2022 huggingface dataset:
There seem to be some rather dubious assumptions there, notably that hunting is a more efficient way of acquiring nutrition than gathering. I'm not a specialist in the field, but my understanding was the opposite.

And sentences such as "[...] baboons [...] devote almost all their daylight hours to feeding [...] while adult Ache and Hadza men spend only a third of the day in food acquisition, preparation, and feeding"? I probably wouldn't go there…

It's kind of convenient that one of the author appears to be selling an app that has just the right diet for the modern troglodyte: https://nutrita.app/author/raphael-sirtoli/
It is funny this is being upvoted as the top comment on HN, last time something similar was said, HN were piling in how awful PDF is and HTML is going to take over the world of publishing along with the coming death of PDF.

>Haters of PDFs do not understand the human aspects of it

Unfortunately UX is not something HN audience or Tech in general are good at. ( Apart from Apple )
Frewer also played a CSIS officer in the underrated series Intelligence, which had an interesting take on Canada vs US CIA/DEA and Chinese spying/geopolitics.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0845746/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
Worth noting, Adobe launched Reader X two days ago, which they claim has a "sandbox" design that prevents attacks such as these.

[1] http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9197230/Adobe_launche...
Sure I keep them in RAW - because storage is not an issue. Organization is though.
The battle is IMO largely won and lost in years 0-5, before kids even reach 1st grade. That's why programs like "Baby College" in Harlem are so important.

Head Start was designed precisely to solve this problem. It has existed for 40 years and hasn't solved it, for the kinds of reasons that are described here: http://epa.sagepub.com/content/17/1/62.abstract and here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=226111 . People have been trying to show that Head Start leads to longitudinal improvements for the entirety of Head Start's existence, and they've failed. I work in my family's business as a grant writing consultant, and we've had a bunch of clients running Head Start programs and Head Start clones. They don't work.

In short, you're advocating for an approach here that has already (mostly) failed. Gates is at least saying that we shouldn't keep rewarding teachers for things (seniority, degrees) that don't actually impact student achievement.
Wouldn't be surprised if new official applications of the Kinect come directly from observing what the most popular hacked applications are.
OMG, I shall use IP Goat from now on, thank you!
More than anything it gives me hope to here that. I've been relying on last.fm to count as the defacto startup of choice for too long. I hope it all works out for you, whatever you're doing. If you need an upvote somewhere or a celebration of what you're trying to achieve, please send me an email.
Hmm, by the way, he's not supposed to hold the phone that way.
Gold is quite close to tungsten in density (19320 kg/m^3 for gold vs 19300 kg/m^3 for tungsten). The criminal mind has found use for that factoid: they coat tungsten bars with gold and pass them off all gold (after all, they come close to passing the Archimedes test). However, the speed of sound in tungsten is significantly different than in gold. This fact allows ultrasonic thickness meters† to be used to verify nondestructively that a gold bar is golden thru-and-thru.

†http://sensorsblog.com/uncategorized/counterfeit-gold-detect...
> That's a pretty good try, but that does not implement the full flexibility of prototypal OO.

Are you talking about JavaScript's "this" keyword? I did not mention it in my preceding comment, because that is an implementation detail of JavaScript functions. I think my point still stands that (static) class-based OO languages are sufficiently powerful to encode the semantics of prototypal inheritance.

> Also, note that I wasn't talking about statically-typed class-based OO specifically. Classical OO exists in plenty of dynamic languages too, so your comments about type systems are kind of out of place.

You have a point there. When they say "classes", I usually think C++ classes or Eiffel classes, but you are right that there are dynamic languages that uses classes, too.
Off their website, "The NSA/CSS core missions are to protect U.S. national security systems and to produce foreign signals intelligence information."

So yes. Foreign nationals are all fair game. One of their two explicit goals is to be able to listen to everyone and everything that does not fall under US privacy law.
I wouldn't necessarily argue the use of "concentration camps," but as I said in this thread, my grandparents and many of their family and friends were interned and they all use "internment camp" as the preferred nomenclature. They have generally avoided the use of "concentration camp."
iMessage security might've been pretty good - if only they didn't back-up your passwords.
The readme says passant isn't implemented, and there's no validation of the player's moves. So you did an illegal move.
The good thing about that was that you could basically do everything in PostScript, in what way does that compare to the modern JavaScript/HTML/CSS+client/server mess? Never mind all the apparently necessary auxiliary languages (templates for HTML, preprocessors for CSS, transpilers for JavaScript).

The closest thing would be something that does almost everything in JavaScript and would abstract the HTML/CSS underpinnings away, but that's certainly not the current approach to "proper" web design (ExtJS would come to mind).

Honestly, I'd be hard-pressed to find any prior system with that many layers (VBScript?)...
I hope my power company doesn't decide to start charging me per kilobyte.
I wasn't proposing that a computer running our universe is based on electronic circuits; rather, I was proposing that computation itself is all that's needed to simulate our universe. Since an 'outside' universe doesn't need to bear any relation to our 'inside' universe, it can be vastly simpler. Maybe it's a rule 110 cellular automaton; maybe it's a 2,3 turing machine; maybe its an iota evaluator; it could even be just some abstract computational essence, distinct from implementation. That's enough to run a simulation.

Now, the question is 'why simulate the universe when you could just simulate a brain'? This is basically the Boltzmann Brain argument. In terms of bits (see Kolmogorov complexity) the universe is simpler to describe (physics + initial conditions) than a whole brain (neurons, synapses, hormones, etc.). Basically, the universe can unfold from a tiny core (the big bang), whereas a single brain can't (it could unfold from a fertilised egg, but that's already huge, and requires all kinds of matter and physics to work which the big bang would have used anyway). In that case, a random program running on an 'outside' computer is much more likely to be a universe than a brain. By the anthropic principle, we could ask if our universe is the simplest which can support life, in terms of the number of bits required to encode the laws of physics as a program.
It's a false dichotomy. The split isn't about no abstractions vs. services, but about whether the abstractions should be behind a network boundary. Let's look at these one at a time.

1) A single syntax error will _still_ break everything in a microservices architecture if the service in question is any essential service. In my experience, most services are essential. In a dynamically linked architecture, the failure occurs when you try to pull in the library. In a well-designed dynamically linked architecture, you can opt to not pull in optional components.

2) If you're an idiot and build everything monolithicly. A well-designed non-services architecture has many independent and independently testable libraries. Integration testing does require the whole system, both with and without services. In this case, both the resource usage and startup time is much lower without services.

3) Ditto for services, if you do integration work. Not so for independent libraries, if you do not.

4) Question of where you put the abstractions, not how you make them.

5) Again, question of where you put the abstractions, not how you make them.

The key reason for services is isolation, failover, and independent deployability.

There are a bunch of programmers out there who were only taught one way to make abstractions (be that services, objects, or what-not), and assume everything else means abstractionless spaghetti code. That's simply not the case. Structured, functional, and other modes of programming have the same quality of abstractions as OO. Likewise for whether you link statically, dynamically, or over a services boundary.
That's a really fun idea. I wonder how you could control programs differently with 2 or even 4 input devices?

Ie, twin cursors on the screen, each controlled by a separate mouse? Tablets introduced a number of interesting new interface mechanisms - double tap, pinch, stretch etc. Could we bring these to non touch-screens?
This isn’t actually true, July and August were renamed from Quintilis and Sextilis. The off-by-two is because the original roman calendar had ten months, with winter not having named months. (See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_calendar)
Given what's been happening to Venice recently, that might not be such a great idea.
I wonder if this is because the curvature of the Multipla makes us interpret it as organic and deformed, like a teratoma; it makes us feel disgust.

The Cybertruck is overtly synthetic and brutalist. It's to be admired for its impressiveness, not its beauty.
I've always thought that all evidence is admissible. However without a proper warrant the officer collecting evidence is guilty of a felony more sever than the crime he is investigating.

The only flaw I see is how to get the state to prosecute officers of this crime...
How does Sourcegraph's pricing [0] come in to play with self-hosted, paid GitLab plans?

For example, if you pay for GitLab's self-managed "Starter" package, and assuming you spin up your own private Sourcegraph instance [1] to go along with your self-managed GitLab instance, what Sourcegraph features do you get? Will you get code review intelligence, which Sourcegraph charges $29/user/month for?

On Sourcegraph's pricing page, it says the open-source edition is missing features like "Single repository definitions and references" and "Cross-repository definitions and references". What does that mean for private GitLab instances?

[0] https://about.sourcegraph.com/pricing/

[1] https://github.com/sourcegraph/sourcegraph
For a laymen like myself, I fail to see how this is anything more than additional evidence for Pavlovian response. Are you an "expert" when you learn that a specific pattern of actions results in a reward? That's all that's going on here -- lick the correct water spout according to the pattern of flashing lights, get a reward.

How about an MRI of a newbie in flight school and an MRI of a seasoned pilot. What does that show in terms of neural development and associated pathways? What does the newbie's brain look like after extensive training? Can you measure neural pathways over many years and see how they grow or change?
Those charges were dropped, iirc. It seems quite possible that that's not actually what happened.
The merchant complaint is legitimate: Many credit cards have variable rates depending on the type of credit card. Many premium cards have higher transaction rates and a merchant is forced to accept all cards of that brand or none. So no, a credit card is not just a credit card and a debit card is not just a debit card. That simplification can happen at the 2.9% + $0.30 level, but many of the discounted rates get much more complicated with tiers for various cards -> You are extremely unlikely to get a 1% rate at high volume on a 1.25% cashback card for example.
What do these symbols add that's not possible with just using Objects as symbols?

E.g. 'foo = {}; bar = {}; foo === bar' yields false.
I agree with the article's arguments. I've been programming since age 10. Doing creative writing almost as long. As an adult ended up doing software engineering as my career. But wrote and published a fiction book two years ago (The Dread Space Pirate Richard, an adventure comedy), close to finishing its sequel (The Man in Black) and also have my first technical book (Software Performance & Scalability) under development. Also written a screenplay and many short stories.

I've found a lot of overlap, in thought process, between programming and writing. Also with music and math. Leverage everything that helps, I think.
Point of fact, there is a lot of competition between companies inside of China. In many instances, there is more competition inside China than there is in the US.
We don't go by that so much as whether the post has had significant attention yet.
Yeah - this is a sample of the 'gold standard' of psychology papers, and only 10/13 could be reproduced.

Having watched scientists at work, reproducing 10 of 13 high-profile studies sounds pretty reasonable. Given p≤0.05, you'd expect 19/20 to be reproducible. Then you add in other factors:

- Surprising positive results get published more readily than negative ones.

- Some results may be sensitive to tiny changes in methodology.

- And more: "Why Most Published Research Findings are False" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/

Some of these effects can be reduced with pre-registration of studies, and with other methodological improvements. But in general, even when everybody plays by the rules, a fair bit of garbage is going to slip through, because it's hard to eliminate all sources of error and bias.

So when a scientific field can say, "Hey, 3/4ths of our really interesting results are real!", that's about what I expect when the processing is working.
Indeed. ldd any substantial GTK app and scroll past the dependencies. They are huge. Most of them are shared across applications.

Desktop would be crippled if every app was compiled with the whole stack of X, toolkit and Gnome libraries linked in statically.
Perhaps less gun ownership was needed when gang-violence occurred less? If they do correlate, I'm not entirely sure we could figure out the chain of causation without jumping to conclusions.
try asking on quora
Don't know why you're being downvoted. This is absolutely correct. Even more so for India than, say, the US (source: I'm Indian). Nobody but a tiny tiny fraction of the population cares that github is getting blocked. The opposition wouldn't even bother making it a big issue since the numbers are so insignificant. And even if they did, they don't really have a moral leg to stand on because all politicians and government officials, almost without exception (ok.. maybe with some rare exceptions) are eager to use censorship when it suites their purposes (usually under the pretext of national security... but even that figleaf is not always necessary).
Nope, DuckDuckGo is my default search engine, make it yours too.
Nonetheless I think the culture of bitcoin as it is currently is more leverage averse than normal which is why the decline this year has not been a precipitous one. My point being that the up and down dynamic of bitcoin will start to change.
suggestions:

- allow authors to write a general overview (with links to methods) of the design philosophy, tradeoffs accepted, stuff that they would do differently now, etc. This could help generate smart pull requests for bigger / more significant features too.

- allow people to ask questions about a line of code.

- allow people to request/contribute better documentation, categorized as api docs, usage examples, etc.

- Allow the author to "accept" an annotation as literate comments submitted as a fork/pr via github.

- let users follow a method or class.

- let users generate a list of methods to follow in a library based on hot path analysis of library use (maybe I only use 3 methods and would love to see changes to those coming from upstream)

- let users contribute method rewrites or unit tests of individual methods as annotations.

- ideally dialogues would ensue about clever/clear ways to implement things. I'd enjoy reading those dialogues.
> Obamacare hasn't improved the access part unless you're subsidized.

That's the "cost" part of cost/access; access is whether you can get health coverage at all. Pre-Obamacare, access to healthcare was pretty dicey outside a corporate health plan, up to the insurer whether they were interested. If you had significant negative health history, you effectively had to work for a large corporation in order to get under the group umbrella. My own health is fortunately good, but I have more than one friend who chose not to start a company or join a small startup because of the healthcare issue (one has a congenital heart problem, which poses no issue for getting corporate group coverage, but previously made individual coverage a no-go).
...and then sold it all for $5 each or so. Plenty of folks have been there. The best case scenario at this point is finding your old HD/backup somewhere with that early-mined bitcoin wallet you had totally forgotten about.
Looks similar to the Gray-Scott model. https://mrob.com/pub/comp/xmorphia/
>> We know from decades of research that more diverse teams are more successful. I like success.

If you think correlation implies causation, I know a lot of ways to brings value to your company.
That's highly unlikely. As the GGP said, using ddg is associated with being wealthy, so it will have the opposite effect over time.

If you're a rich white guy, this oppression is unlikely to apply to your choices. Instead, your choices will be used as filters to identify you at the exclusion of others
Sorry for offering to suggest a Romanian translation, and then disappearing on you, I was 16 at that time.

Your book was what got me deeper into programming and networks in general back then, I have a full time job around this now. Thank you!
This method is not that efficient to transfer loads of data
The important question, IMO, is whether UBI costs less than other measures. It's administratively simple and it can potentially prevent greater costs by virtue of people being unhoused and consuming more services elsewhere.

That's enough for me to call it "effective". Being cheaper and better outcomes on the most difficult endpoints would be even better, of course, but I don't consider that essential.
FIDO (except in resident mode which we'll ignore here) requires the site requesting you authenticate to hand over a large opaque blob called an ID that your authenticator gave it when you enrolled the authenticator. This ID will be different for every time you enrolled an authenticator, and it can recognise its own IDs (using modern cryptography). To prevent you enrolling the same one twice, sites hand over a list of the ones you already enrolled and your authenticators say "I'm already enrolled here" if they recognise the ID.

So somesite.example if it suspects Jim and Candy are the same person, or at least, using the same FIDO authenticator, could do this:

When Jim signs in, they present Candy's ID. If they're right, Jim's authenticator goes "Oh I recognise this, signed". If they're wrong, Jim gets an error. Weird. Presumably on a second try they give Jim's ID and it works so that Jim isn't too suspicious.

So this attack would allow a site that strongly suspects you're doing this to prove it, to their own satisfaction anyway. But it doesn't offer any practical way for a site with more than a handful of users to just match all the users.

In resident mode, you have to admit who you are as part of signing in - you're not separately typing in an email address or username or whatever, you just press the button on your authenticator (or touch the sensor on your phone, or whatever) and you're in. This obviously means it doesn't make sense for Jim and Candy to use one device for two users on the site, and most likely their device will prohibit them from trying to enroll the second user this way.

Edited to add: If someothersite.example plays Jim or Candy's IDs from somesite.example (may it's secretly run by the same people, or they stole a database backup) to Jim (or Candy) they don't work, the IDs are bound to the domain, so these don't match.
The built-in Windows Command Shell is actually quite capable. However, syntax is rather different than *nix shells.
Agreed, and I don't think that's even necessarily the worst thing. It just means that engineering and product/sales have to have a conversation, mutual trust, and a shared vision that extends beyond the next quarter. These are hard things to cultivate, however.
Bundling of iMessage and SMS = reduction in competition by integration.
> I feel like the biggest competition is specific, tailored services from the bigger players - Amazon Lightsail for example.

Nope, the biggest competition is in the same niche - Linode, OVH, Scaleway.
The obvious risk with plain-text protocols is that you don't write a rigorous spec, and don't write a strict parser, but some hack up least-effort thing with a few string.split() and whatever. This means there is a lot of slack in what is actually accepted, and unless you are in full control of both ends of the protocol, that slack will be taken advantage of, and unless you are more powerful than whoever is at the other end (which you aren't, if they're your clients and you are not Google or Facebook), you have to support it forever. So write plain-text protocols if you like, but make sure to have a rigorous spec, and a parser with the persicketyness of... I don't know.
I'm really happy to see Ben and Moisey get this far. They are both extremely competent sysadmins and system architects too.

They retained a lot of equity as well - good to see.
"Years of private company discussion showing up in the wild? You're unlikely to ever recover."

I'd be angry but my company wouldn't be ruined. The worst thing I ever say in internal communications is to poke fun at a couple of our grumpier or more entitled users. I also probably curse slightly more than is entirely prudent. But, that'd be mildly amusing to have exposed, not ruinous.

Perhaps if you're saying stuff that you would be "unlikely to ever recover from" if it were shared with people outside of your company, maybe that's not the kind of thing you should be saying.
Mozilla is doing an embarrassingly bad job of promoting software freedom here. They are promoting proprietary software often and making no distinction betwen free/open-source and no-charge/proprietary-freeware. Ugh.
I am going to discuss insurance with my employer. It looks like it is a pretty big deal in the US.

We've visited several countries in the past. So, cultural differences should not be a big problem but since so many people are emphasizing on this point, I think I'll come and stay for a few weeks as a worker rather than as a tourist and check it out again.

3 is definitely what is troubling for my family which is used to such comforts now.

Thanks for all your inputs!
The Kindle has long had "First chapter free":

http://www.teleread.com/2009/06/14/the-kindle-chapter-previe...
Did you use Hunch behind a reverse proxy?
Their Terms of Service are unenforceable. You don't need a license to distribute code that asks the New York Times for their resources. The New York Times responds to those requests by saying "OK" and transmitting their content. They're free to stop doing that.

If this were an Android app, there would still be ways to make money off of the app even if Google removed it from the store. Practically speaking, it probably wouldn't be very successful, but it's nice to know that the option is there.
Blocks all non-licensed integration with their products (notably iTunes).

??

They blocked Palm devices from masquerading as iPods, but I wasn't aware that a license was needed to read and write to (via AppleScript/COM) iTunes Music Library.xml as Nokia and BB's sync software do.

edit: spelling
Another great example of how lawyers ruin everything.