jkeisling/hacker-news-corpus-2007-2022 huggingface dataset:
This has probably been stated several times by now, but the amazon documentation is absolutely horrible. Braintree, Stripe, and Paypal all have fantastic tech and reliable services in addition to fantastic documentation. I don't have an opinion for any other payment-processing vendors.

Now for the war story: Business was focused on deploying amazon-payments because of the cheap fees. In order to change their minds, I had them call into tech support. After 3 hours and 5 hangups, business opted for another vendor. The implementation was effortless and only took me a few hours.
Well to be fair, with most Kickstarters, a promise is made. You contribute $5, we thank you. You contribute $100, you get the product early. You contribute $1000, we fly out and thank you personally. The Kickstarter TOS might say something else, but in effect the purchaser did purchase something. Yes, they donated their money, but they were promised something in return.

I'm not sure I'm reading the tone of your comment correctly so I apologize if I'm just repeating what you said, but your use of the words "in their eyes" and "how the people think" makes it seem like you don't believe the same thing. If I back a project that promises X and they don't deliver, they took my money without delivering what they promised. I believe even Kickstarter themselves says that failed projects have to give the money back.
Graduate of App Academy NY here:

I just don't mention the boot camp, unless explicitly asked. The "Rails dev in 12 weeks" pitch understandably sounds like a scam at first glance. Fortunately it isn't, and I'm happily employed.

As others have mentioned, almost no one in our cohort came in without prior programming experience. They seemed to be screening for types who:

* Had prior programming experience

* Did not major in CS in college, if they went to college

* Performed well in technical interviews

Teaching is very hands off; per day, you're given a partner, a project, and limited guidance from an available TA/instructor. I rarely talked with our main instructor. Workweeks were expected to be around 90-100 hours.

I graduated a while ago, so this information may not be current. I also can't speak to graduates of other schools. At the time, it seemed like a good way to grab otherwise smart people who missed out on CS in college, and give them the opportunity to retrain.

Edit: Formatting
Holy shit, settle down for a second.

The guy equates working for a paycheck with entitlement... how out of touch can you be?

I didn't read any of what you said in the author's blog. He even mentions, at the end, about "waxing nostalgic". So his argument going to be a bit one-sided but then, it is his argument after all.

I agree with the overall sentiment of the author's rant. I miss some of the geeking out that was done in the tech industry, because it now seems to be filled with people looking to get rich quick with barely-working MVPs, or building services that have no revenue stream. The industry has turned very "business-y", IMO, but maybe it is just the natural cycle of every industry.

UPDATE: Adding a bit of substance to my comment.
I don't disagree with anything you said, but to pin down some concepts a tiny bit in the hopes that someone might find it helpful...

Java's Iterable is a "type constructor" - a function that turns types into other types. The domain of this function is any (non-primitive?) Java type. The range is things of the form Iterable<T>.

Some type constructors have a special property. In programming speak, they're "things you can sensibly map over." From a math perspective, they're one half of a functor - a "structure preserving map between categories". The type constructor maps the category's objects, we need to add a function to map arrows. In Haskell, we do that by creating an instance of Functor, where we define the function "fmap" for the specific type constructor.

For some functors, you can reasonably define a function like your "transformAndConcat" ("bind" in math and Haskell) and something that produces a singleton of whatever iterable (or the equivalent, for things that aren't containers). The triple of functor, transformAndConcat, and singleton (such that they obey the Monad laws) is a monad - in the same sense that a pair of a set and an associative operation is a semigroup.

The way math defines a monad is subtly different - they use concat (called "join" or "eta") directly, but you can define transformAndConcat using only concat and map (and concat using only transformAndConcat and id) so these are equivalent they just look a little different.
There's also the fact that correlation does not imply causation. The possibility of a common cause is fairly obvious here: people who are at higher risk of being the targets of crime may be more likely to buy guns for protection, and people who are armed may be more likely to become involved if they see someone else being attacked.
[quote src="http://www.neowin.net/news/microsoft-tried-to-aquire-faceboo... reportedly replied to Ballmer by saying "Why don’t we just buy you for $15 billion?”[/quote]

if I read your comment correctly, you are saying it was Ballmer that said that line to Zuckerberg, which would make the neowin article line a misquote. Do you have alternative sources you can link?
Thanks for the comment. I could put the deck up on slideshare or something I suppose.

Dumbassery on my own part for not completing my profile though.
This makes it much clearer, thanks. Those two operations weren't mentioned anywhere else that I saw, and they are very helpful in explaining what monads are.
selling out to predatory foreign companies with openly questionable moral compasses and null respect for the local legislation

Exactly. Remaining sold out to predatory local companies which take care to hide their moral compasses, the ones who bought the local legislation to begin with... that's the proper European way. Lots of little fiefdoms exacting tribute from the population, all nice and patriotic.

Predatory local companies, you object? Yeah... there's a reason it's easy for Uber to charge half the price of a standard taxi. I mean, I don't trust Uber further than I can throw my smartphone -- just don't labor under the delusion that you're doing the common man a favor by keeping them out. The common man is the guy trying to take uberPool or uberPop or whatever service de jure, to save a little cash.
For me, I hate the feeling of BEING WATCHED. It's just unnerving.

Agree. It's practically abusive. Even if you're a great worker, pillar of the community, whatever, the fact remains that a surveillance state is an anxiety state.

The problem is that this industry is now fueled by the eagerness of clueless 22-year-olds who've never had a serious health problem or personal matter that interferes with work, who still think they're immortal, and buy into that "if you have nothing to hide" fallacy. Fuck that shit.
Yes it is indeed by the author of curl! (me ;-)
You're talking about source compatibility. (Windows 1 was never 32-bit.)

Most people here seem to be talking about binary (.exe) compatibility.
Math.

But to give some substance to the claim, the speed record for single-system password hashing in 2012 was ~350GH/s [0].

Let's assume that in 2015 a single system is capable of doing 1TH/s, or ~1000GH/s. So, 10^12 password attempts per second. An attacker, who is not a nation state, should be expected to have access to maybe 400 such systems. But to make this conservative, let's assume they have 1000 such systems. So, the attackers should be able to reach 1000 TH/s, or 10^15 attempts per second.

10^15 =~ 2^(15/0.301) =~ 2^50.

Hence, a determined attacker with finite resources has to do, on average, 2^31 seconds of work to brute force a password with 72 bits of entropy. 2^31 seconds is roughly 68 years.

That in turn means that there are lot of lower hanging fruit to pick before even thinking of expending resources to brute force passwords with 72 bits of entropy.

On the other hand, the resource requirements are getting awfully close to the realm of feasibility, so 72 bits might not be sufficient for long after all...

0: http://hackaday.com/2012/12/06/25-gpus-brute-force-348-billi...
It started 50 years ago.
Love this! Do updates to the ETF push out to anyone invested, or do individuals have to rebalance if weighting changes happen to the original?
PSA: Add this to /etc/hosts if you don't want other sites collecting info from you via Google Analytics/Ads

0.0.0.0 googleanalytics.com
0.0.0.0 googlesyndication.com

A more complete list of things worth adding to /etc/hosts here (I'm not affiliated with this):

https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts
Negative. Slicehost launched in the middle of Linode pivoting virtualization stacks after proving out the business and running into limitations of their first stack (UML). Slicehost was ... 2006, if memory serves? Linode was a few years old by that point. For those keeping score, Linode then went to Xen and now KVM just like everyone else.

Linode and Slicehost were very similar stories, though. Slicehost bootstrapped as well and was run by good people.
to be honest, any moderm AP will do the job. processing power increased by a lot recently and the spec is mostly just narrowing down what enterprise gear used to do for years as an "extra". e.g. wifi6 (ax) is just officializing beam forming that every premium ap had since wifi-n but was not part of the spec.

praising unifi you are just suffering from new-shiny-toy-syndrome. Specially because your unifi AP is the only (few?) product on the market that requires a second appliance to work (and don't even get me started on running the controller on a vm with outdated dependencies, out of sync open source code, and broken mongoDB implementation) to not have more than half of the advertised features disabled (e.g. vlans, guest, etc)
To me it is the old Gentleman's bet of a dollar. More or less worthless outside of the fact that you must admit defeat, and surrender something. The thing surrendered doesn't matter or have any value beyond the symbolic.
The official blog post is up:
http://www.macruby.org/blog/2010/12/13/macruby08.html
Grass and trees don't weigh a lot, compared to dirt, or earth, or water-laden earth. Compare a moderate snowfall of a couple of feet with a foot of dirt and some rainfall.

But these should be zoned, yes.
In large corps maybe, where it's pennies for each share holder. In Government (particularly local government) that amount, while still a small slice of the pie, can do real life-changing stuff for e.g. vulnerable people in the local community.
I think the intent is to limit the degree with which one can still coordinate nefarious activity outside their prison. (like continuing to run a drug ring from you cell...) And the jailers probably have a good idea of who they want to target. Cell phones might be rampant in jails, but for 90% of the inmates you don't care about. The 10% you don't want to have cell phones have probably gotten much better at hiding them (ie small phones)

All that's just my guess, I'm not really advocating the ban, I'm just trying to think from other points of view.
* Redhat is somewhat open-core: They develop proprietary interfaces and products as well as the core OS.

* Nagios.
The shackle gets a lot of ink in the media, and it did fail. The questions about who inspected it and how seem a bit misplaced given that it was rated at 120 tons and the tow line alarm registered over 300 tons more than 30 times, so missing provenance or not, it seems like the shackle was performed beyond its design limits and beyond what the engineers required. They were just wrong.

The towline itself was only rated to 85 tons, the towline manufacturer did well.
> Like other NoSQL databases, FoundationDB offered a way to build databases that spanned hundreds or thousands of different servers, often housed in geographically distant data centers.

What?

> FoundationDB promised a way to provide scalability without sacrificing performance

Wait, what?
I'd love that e-mail encryption became widespread, but I'm doubtful that it'll ever happen. I think keeping private keys private may prove to be an impossible task. Systems are too insecure. Even security experts may fall victim to sophisticated attacks. Let alone the other 99.9% who are not security experts.
There are no US manufacturers for most of the stuff on Amazon though.

Cheaper consumer good manufacturing in the US is gone for good.
Ha, you're actually kind of right. That article doesn't quite say what I remembered it saying. Been a while since I read it. I'd say about half the points are still applicable, but it is more pro-browser than me for sure.

Too late to edit, but Steve's previous blog post probably presents my point better, though with less focus on the vs Java argument:

https://steveklabnik.com/writing/webassembly-is-more-than-ju...
I grew up in Cincinnati. You are correct, however traffic is bad enough now that a subway or light rail would make a big difference. Unfortunately it is unlikely the voters would approve a tax increase to support that.
> But no one is incentivized to do take action unilaterally.

Maybe the FCC could incentivize people?
Pay people $100/month to use Ethernet only.

Hand out beamforming routers. Too many people are still stuck on b/g/n routers, which are a big part of the shouting culprit.
Not the parent, but I made the same transition a couple of years ago. I emailed you something I've wrote in Haskell that might be relevant to you but didn't want to publicize too much yet.
I too am interested in this. I just took a look through the docs. SQL layer over a distributed key-value store...

Full ACID and looks to have support for FK/PK JOINs/ and multi-table queries. Their benchmarks page looks super awesome. How well does this work in practice?

One major difference from Cassandra (I think) seems to be that coordinator nodes are set statically (but can be changed on the fly). Cassandra is not this way. While there are coordinator nodes during client connections, they are chosen dynamically by the client during the session and not some fixed config point.

Another difference appears to be transaction limits (https://foundationdb.com/layers/sql/documentation/Concepts/k...). This is fundamentally different from Cassandra, but to be expected without tunable consistency.

Different tools for different problems. I think Cassandra fits Apple's content distribution model better (e.g. streaming music/movie blobs out of C* for iTunes all over the world), but for a traditional RDBMS that is distributed, this looks like a great escape.

Scaling seems pretty easy if it's as easy as copy-pasting the config file from node to node and bouncing the service. Anyone know about this in practice?
We're not going to have another Cold War. For one thing, the American and Chinese economies are interdependent. For another, they'd both require multilateral support to act militarily in any significant capacity.
That is not what the researchers suspect. The article misquotes the study. You only have to go as far as the abstract to find: "Regardless of the amount of sedentary activity reported by these men, being older, having normal weight, being normotensive, and being physically active were associated with a reduced risk of CVD death."
I don't see how you can comment on Kindle not being a quality product if you haven't used one at all. It's easy to use and built well. I haven't heard of any widespread issues about it at all.

Also, The Kindle SDK program hasn't been canceled. It's still available as it's always been, though still in Beta.

http://www.amazon.com/kdk/
You should have set up your argument against the views of the FSF. His views on things like 9/11 are irrelevant in this argument. We all have our crazy and not so crazy beliefs. Sometimes the more of a splash you make in our world the more on the crazy side your beliefs can be.
Nice work! Flipcode was a regular reference of mine back in the day, it's a shame it died out.
Would you design a (small) bomb for 2 billion dollars?
Counter example: No companies I've worked at had an explicit policy of rejecting a resume with a picture/photo. Whether it was done by some people in practice - unsure.
A great book on the subject in "The God Effect", by Brian Clegg.

The fact that we have confirmed that this phenomenon is real is insane! This opens the door to all sorts of things that should be impossible.

For one, it violates some of the rules of spacetime.

For example: You have two sets of entangled particles, we'll call them 1a, 1b, 2a & 2b. They exist both on Earth (1a & 2a), and onboard a spaceship travelling 99% the speed of light away from the Earth at a distance of 1 LY (1b & 2b). On Earth, we trigger a wave-function collapse of 1a, which instantaneously causes the collapse of 1b. Then, a machine onboard the ship triggers the collapse of 2b, thereby causing 2a to collapse.

Now, the delay between 1a and 2a collapsing should be the exact amount of time that the machine onboard the spacecraft can detect the collapse of 1b and trigger the collapse of 2b, however, if we introduce general relativity and time-dilation, the collapse of 2a should happen nearly an entire year before the collapse of 1a (the effect comes before the cause).

Now, if we can perfect this phenomenon so that we can actually send real data instantaneously between two points, we could actually send data backwards in time.

If this works out the way it does on paper, testing space-travel paradoxes could be real.

Thinking back to the previous example: Imagine that the collapse of 2a were to trigger a mechanism that collapses 1a. If the collapse of 1a causes collapse of 2a retroactively, which one would collapse first?
Ease of deployment: the first and hardest deployment step is creating code worth deploying.

Readability: I'm pretty sure having to create copies of container classes for each thing they can contain, or casting in and out of object, or wrapping all your contained classes in an interface, is less readable than generics, not more readable.

Compile time: this is an overblown concern. If you're using a compilation system that compiles only the parts you change, your typical compilation should be so quick as to take negligible time. Complete rebuilds such as on a CI server should be happening asynchronously to development and therefore should only cost server time, which is of negligible value in comparison with development time. If your builds are taking so long that server time becomes an issue, your code has built up too much cruft and it's time to refactor to reduce your size (failure to do this will cause much bigger problems than slow compilation).

Language simplicity: I'm pretty sure having to create copies of container classes for each thing they can contain, or casting in and out of object, or wrapping all your contained classes in an interface, is less simple than generics, not more simple.

Toolchain simplicity: I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke someone to think this is relevant.

Maintainability: I'm pretty sure having to create copies of container classes for each thing they can contain, or casting in and out of object, or wrapping all your contained classes in an interface, is less maintainable than generics, not more maintainable.
That already exists. It's known as the Nexus Player, which is "Google Cast Ready", has HDMI 2.0, and 802.11ac 2x2.

http://www.google.com/nexus/player/
'there’s no such thing as the “IO monad” or the “List monad”'

I don't think I agree (depending on just what is meant by "such thing as")... I would say there is such thing as "the IO monad" in the same sense as there is such thing as "the rational field" or "the Z/5 group". It's a particular example of a more general algebraic structure, and you'd use the phrase when you're talking particularly about the structure as it occurs in that instance.
The burning question I had since the start of the video was answered at 1:23
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=XN...
Are giant open-source projects like Chrome, Firefox, or FreeBSD cathedrals? Unlike bazaar poster child Linux, these projects mostly control their own roadmap and releases, without many competing distributions.
Because humans. Remember how confusing and difficult to find those bugs are where you forget to convert timezones that are, say, <3 hours away from one another? This must be very familiar especially to all African and European coders, where we're caught by this every time we forget to convert to/from UTC somewhere. It's easy to not notice it, while coding with some test data, when your software displays a time only one or two hours off. I bet many UK coders only notice their bug when summer begins. I'm not sure whether you valley people recognize this as well, but I'm sure you can imagine.

Now, instead, imagine things being only a few seconds off, instead of entire hours. How big is the chance that the bug would be caught before things hit production? What if, in some cases, seconds actually matter?

I think it's just asking for trouble.

To me, this is a bit like proposing binary protocols and not text protocols because it's obviously technically superior. It's a good idea until you factor in that software is made by humans.
If it's a couple of flights daily then you're waiting up to 12 hours to get on one, and suddenly the time saving doesn't look so spectacular.

Getting the size right is a problem I'm glad I don't have, but best not to make it too small or have too few flights bearing in mind your dollar development costs will be measured in 10s of billions.
>This is exactly what the patent system was made for; so the little guy could have an incentive to invent

I think this is completely false despite it being "common wisdom". I've challenged people who say this to provide some sort of evidence that patent systems aid innovation and seen none that was anywhere near convincing so far.

Nobody so far has so much as ventured an answer except one person who pointed to a study that measured innovation solely by the increased use of patent systems in countries where the regime of legal monopolies strengthened over time. I see that as evidence of the insidious nature of patent systems if anything, but to each his own I guess. Got anything?
I know this doesn't really mean anything, but it's kinda funny that this is at v1.0, but node.js is at version 0.12.1
Yup. In the case of people like Stonebraker -- or Butler Lampson, who's also officially adjunct at MIT -- Think of it as: You get an office, a community, resources with which to do research (and a framework within which to ask for grant/funding if you want), opportunities to advise students, the ability to teach classes when you want. In exchange, you don't get much money -- but also almost zero responsibilities unless you choose to assume them.
(source: I'm a CS professor and I got my Ph.D. at MIT while both Stonebraker and Lampson were there.)
> Why? One doesn't need to take a very strict view of what "robust and reliable extensible software system" means to conclude that we do not have such systems at the moment.

No. But we do have garbage collected languages, and we still don't have robust and reliable extensible software systems. So claiming that garbage collection is going to get us there does seem naïve.

But the original claim was that garbage collection is a prerequisite - not sufficient, but necessary. I still think that's naïve. But maybe, once we figure out how to do it, then we can figure out what language elements are necessary, and then we can see if garbage collection is on the list.

My bet: Garbage collection can help, but it's not essential.