skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Hey, I'm James Wilcox, another member of the Verdi team.

This is a good question. More broadly, what do you have to trust in order to believe our claims?

In addition to all the usual things (like the soundness of Coq's logic and the correctness of its proof checker), the most important thing you need to trust is the top-level specification. In our case, this is linearizability (have a look at https://github.com/uwplse/verdi/blob/master/raft/Linearizabi... for the key definition; the key theorem statement is at https://github.com/uwplse/verdi/blob/master/raft-proofs/EndT... ). If you can convince yourself that these correspond to your intuitive understanding of linearizability, then you don't need to trust any other theorem statement or definition in the development.

If you actually want to run our code, then you need to make several other assumptions. Our system runs via extraction to OCaml, so you must trust the extractor and the OCaml compiler and runtime. In addition we have a few hundred lines of OCaml to hook up the Coq code to the real world (eg, writing to disk and putting bits on the network).

To respond more directly to your question about Diego's proof, I can tell you we referred to it often to get the high-level idea. But the TLA model differs in several respects from our implementation of Raft in Verdi. Most importantly, our code is an implementation in the sense that you can run it. This means that it resolves all nondeterminism in the specification. Furthermore, there is no need to manually check that what we implemented matches the TLA model, unless that is your preferred means for convincing yourself that we really did implement Raft.
Probably not. And if you could, then it'll only be because Microsoft re-implemented those UIKit elements in XAML.
Hmm, well in that case it's beyond me why they have to take the car, drive it into the service station, connect it to the laptop, and have it sit there for 40min thinking. I'll show him that page, maybe they could do it with USB sticks as well, which would really speed up the process, because they can just get 10 USB sticks and have one guy do 10 cars at the same time.
Yep. Watch the Walter Scott footage: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/shot-and...
Very neat tech.

Also interesting delivery method for the image in the article... and you can do https://images.washingtonpost.com/?url=https://www.google.co...
I'm surprised they didn't use Apple's libobjc nor CoreFoundation; a quick look at the Foundation/CoreFoundation code suggests it's nowhere near as complete as Apportable's. The rest looks impressive though and it's great the open sourced it. Instead of complaining I suppose one should just fix things! (For example, where is CFGetTypeID()?)
>> do police in the US shoot suspects when there is no threat other than the risk they will get away?

> he or she may not use deadly force to prevent escape unless "the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."

> Which to say, yes. Although I don't think there's actually a requirement to verbally warn them.

Which is to say: not legally.
"Ecuadorean opposition activist Dr. Carlos Figueroa was being pursued by the state when his email and Facebook accounts were hacked. Several dozen of his colleagues have similarly had their digital lives violated. All blamed President Rafael Correa's government..."
Show HN: World News Quiz – MIT Study of World News Awareness
Reading this article, I found it fascinating how endemic prejudice is to the human experience. I don't mean prejudice in the negative sense, but in the sense of unreasonable bias.

"His professors and textbooks taught that people could only recognize a color as categorically distinct from others if they had a word for it."

"Scientists had no reason to suspect that cultures divvied it up in similar ways."

And then, the conclusion:

"Cultures seemed to build up their color vocabularies in a predictable way."

As humans, we make things up. There is no getting away from it, due to our limited perspective. Sometimes I muse on the fact that we once thought the Earth was flat because at some point, someone essentially "lied".
What is stopping management from asking employees' permission to rewrite their contracts in this way? If the employees say sure! (why would you decline?) then is there a problem?
B-more the city that bleeds.(I live there too) That said, the murders usually occur in the same bad areas over and over. If you live in a good area, you notice it only on the evening local news.
One problem with this line of reasoning is that even cultural products released on looser terms tend to be captured by corporate behemoths. It's not uncommon for large labels to buy up rights to independently-released music, for instance. The artists may have limited say in this: they licensed the music to a small label, that label went bankrupt, the rights got bought up by a bigger company (which never would have signed the artist in the first place, but now that they're semi-successful there's less risk).

The problem isn't that you can't buy this or that new album without supporting the industry, the problem is that an entire medium is getting sucked up by these huge corporations, who push for copyright limits which make it impossible for that work to ever enter the public domain. "Vote with your wallet" is not a reasonable answer to this kind of situation.
Good idea. I like the way your thinking. But I was thinking of adding in Nickel. That way I really can leverage the saying "If I had a nickle every time <blank> happened".
Or better training and actual accountability. It's not like cops use tasers judiciously and intelligently.
Da Kidd Free – All Year [Boston Artist] (2015)
> How do you, for example, pool the allocations that closures or defer perform?

It's a strange area that demands reliable or stable performance but uses closures and exceptions, two ways to inject a healthy amount of noise into your understanding of the program, and certainly blows the upper bound on "arbitrary wait time" to huge. I haven't been presented with a problem yet that allowed you to complain about GC with respect to latency where you would want implicit allocations happening all over the case....
ublock is great software (it didn't exist when we started work on PB!) and so there are only a few things PB will catch that it doesn't. But there are some. For instance, PB will replace widgets such as Tweet and Facebook like buttons with locally hosted, non-tracking variants. And PB may catch new trackers faster than ublock because it uses algorithmic detection rather than requiring a blocklist.
We've banned this account. Calling Marissa Mayer a cunt is an egregious violation of the civility that HN requires. (Using an archaic spelling doesn't change that, it just makes it weird.) No one gets to do this here.

I told you just three days ago that if you wouldn't or couldn't stop doing this, I would ban your account [1]. This comes after more warnings, reminders, cajolings, and please-dont's than anyone has received in the history of HN by a long shot. It's painfully evident that you won't or can't stop, and it's time we applied the rules equally.

1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9994684

Edit: the parent comment was killed by user flags. We didn't delete it or moderate it.
What isn't yet clear to me about these kinds of proofs: how can you verify that this proof is correct? How can you know there isn't a wrong assumption or wrong bit of 'code' in those 5500 lines? Would it have been impossible for Voevodsky to make his original mistake in such a formalization? Obviously the point of his entire homotopy type theory project is that he thinks he couldn't have. But why are mistakes (near) impossible here?
You can never stop learning. Go is my current 'thing', at least for personal projects. But who knows what the landscape will be like in 5 years or 10.

For a while I though Haskell was the most awesome thing. Good Haskell code has a timeless quality to it (in a couple senses of the word). But I found adapting my thinking to it difficult, and it wasn't likely to be something I'd use at work then or now.
Web Designer and IT Professional
Who is a hacker?
If the suspect is making advances towards the officer - even without a visible weapon - yes. The Tueller Drill [0] offers an explanation that few people seem to be aware of. A person 20ft/6m away is still dangerous. The issue is that a large amount of the public consider this a "safe, non-threatening" distance. Many people even think 6ft/2m is a safe distance because it is "outside of arm's reach".

At distances of ~5 meters the officer could be overpowered, wrestled to the ground, and have their own gun used to shoot them. So "unarmed" is a pathetic joke when people (and the media) use it as a synonym for "not dangerous".

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill
Color me skeptical, I have some doubts about that NYT piece. I did take a look, and indeed I had trouble with telling shades of green as presented.

However, the image of color patches was quite blurry, color mottled and totally ambiguous. The RBG explication was interesting, showing three greens, 80/186/15, 80/187/15, 97/192/4. To make sense of it, in a paint program I made patches with these RGB values.

Seeing a difference between 97/192/4 and the others was easy, but telling 80/186/15 vs. 80/187/15 wasn't really possible. I have serious doubts anyone could reliably do so, regardless of ethnic background.

But it's no surprise. Is a typical computer display reliably capable of rendering that small a difference in green representation? Furthermore, in a printed format, how reliably can inks/dyes reproduce such a small color distinction, let alone the variables introduced by ink thickness, paper characteristics and so on.

To my mind, it's not convincing, there are just too many inadequately controlled variables. Determining the "nature vs. nurture" factors implicated in behavior as complex as color perception and discrimination capabilities requires a great deal more study to even know what it is we are studying.
Were there four lights? Or five?
'Dropbox for Business' multiple accounts shipped with a pretty major edge case:

How to terminate your worst enemy's Dropbox account for only $795

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4962975
A couple of domains I'd like to sell
Hi,

I've had these 2 domains for years & keep thinking I'll get around to developing them, but it never happens. So I'm looking to just sell them off. They're on Gandi.net, so you'd have to create an account with them for the transfer to go through- no biggie.

They've both been registered for 10 years, so expire in 2020+.

nocturnalfeast.com
subsonicsoftware.com

Let me know if you're interested in comments, as my email isn't published here.
Not to mention, "don't take any wooden nickels".
Indeed, perhaps we should aim to have weaponized drones following cops around that can precisely target weak points when the cop orders.

This article also makes a compelling case that when the necromorphs come, cops will be useless to protect humanity.
Arian Foster: “I don't believe in God.”
Practical Significance: Moving Beyond P Values and Probabilities
I first started using ocaml (f# actually and then re-wrote it in ocaml) for writing a simple interpreter to generate java code from mysql schema tables to deal with hibernate boiler plates etc. The code was much succinct than a comparable parser written in say antlr. That was my first introduction to typesafety helping me move forward. Specially, when coming back to the code, the compiler will scream at you for either not handling all the patterns that matched or adding new ones that didnt exist yet and needed to be changed.
I went away from OCAML towards Haskell because a coworker convinced me to switch: also haskell seems to have a better support for multicore architectures. Of course, my applications are more web/networking apps, crud, websites etc. So i could have gone either way. The one difference i find when programming with Haskell as opposed to ocaml is that in ocaml, my instinct would be to write a little interpreter(or a quasi quoter). In Haskell, I still think that template haskell is a necessary evil, therefore, do it only when I really know what I am doing.
I found this link to be quite helpful: http://pleac.sourceforge.net/pleac_ocaml/
1. Dead men tell no tales.
2. Aiming at smaller and easier to miss areas is a great way to introduce bullets to whatever is behind the intended target.
3. Getting shot is not a guarantee of a cessation of hostilities.
"stop or I'll shoot" implies delay or warnings being given by police, which is a stretch.

April 4, 2015: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Walter_Scott

July 19, 2015: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Samuel_DuBose
So, this would be the equivalent of putting the business office up as collateral for a business loan?
additional source consideration, pfoa.org.co.uk: Police Firearms Officers Association
All your replies in this thread are more clear/interesting than the original linked article.

Very cool stuff.
It's not just a cost in terms of memory, it's a cost in terms of performance as well. Persistent data structures tend to result in a fair bit of pointer chasing, and the cache miss penalty ain't getting any less expensive.

I find oftentimes when I'm working in F# I do the initial versions of a module using persistent data structures, but eventually the profiler tells me it's time to bite the bullet and switch to mutable structures. The change tends to end up being relatively painless because a huge portion of the time I wasn't relying on persistence anyway, the code does not explode into a confetti of bugs, and run times improve considerably.
Perhaps the solution to police killings is to disarm the police. The current default--police have weapons and can use them as they see fit--seems not to be working.
I don't get the connection, it's not cops being killed at a higher rate.
Private blog that prompts for login. No visible content here.
Mobile First: 5 Reasons Mobile Is Driving ECommerce
For DNSSEC
I'm a decent fan of this because it doesn't block ads that behave themselves. And ad blocking is still morally corrupt.
You mean like this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5V0vL3nnHY

And I doubt solar panels would ever be used for charging the whole car in a very significant way, even if they had 80% efficiency.
We Can Do It!: Silicon Valley Help Sought as Pentagon Fights Cyber-Attacks
I also felt the article could have tried to get to the point more directly.

My initial reading of the article was that they were hand-wringing about whether the feature-set predicting crime could double as a feature-set for predicting race, and whether we should discount the algorithms as a result. To which my reaction was 'meh.' Just don't explicitly use race as a feature, and make sure your feature set will find suspicious people regardless of their race.

Feedback loops, on the other hand, are a completely legitimate concern, and something that should be asked about and controlled for in these kinds of analyses.
With NK its not really encryption. Just a really big air gap between systems
Are you part of the team building Underworld Ascendant? Because that sounds very much their speed.
C# has also supported type aliases for a while:

using MyTuple = Tuple<string, string, string>;

But that's of limited utility (you have to include it in every code file, for instance) and I don't recall the exact circumstances but I recall it being brittle the last time I used it heavily (it was something like the compiler would fail to compile things that should be fine due to it forgetting a type alias half-way through a file), but that was also several compiler versions ago.
As in, you scored 14? Not bad. Now for the real question: What kind of display panel are you using? TN, IPS, etc?

I thought the test was stressful in a weird sort of way. Had to turn the lights off in the room to help discern between the shades.
Someone needs to invent a "shoot to incapacitate" weapon (that is not a Taser).

That said... we have the technology, today, to make a gun that automatically targets, in a split second and with high accuracy, the arms and legs (and any other part) of a person. So why don't we just do that?
Feel free to share with your friends, colleagues, and followers--we could use as many people participating as possible! -OP
Non-exempt salaried as well.
"We Can Do It!" is an American wartime propaganda poster produced by J. Howard Miller in 1943 for Westinghouse Electric as an inspirational image to boost worker morale." ---https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_Can_Do_It!
No, it really isn't absurd. The German police do it very frequently.

http://www.morgenpost.de/berlin/polizeibericht/article205518...
You own your labor. It's not unlike any other job where you have to put in time to get something out of it. As a programmer, I don't own any line of code or algorithm which I leverage. I am skilled labor, pure and simple. And you as an artist are also skilled labor.

The question should be how to monetize your labor? That answer isn't easily given but I can guess it would require a whole new method of payment. For example, a musician in the vast majority of cases lives from the money earned in performances as very few are writers of their own songs (that's where the current money is found in terms of the music industry). Thus, musicians would monetize as they always have, through payment for performances. It's when you get into writing lyrics or entire songs (sheet music plus lyrics) is where things may become complex. If the writer and musician are the same person then the person would have to default to performances to ensure some measure of payment. As for the song itself, that would be something left to the creator to figure out.

As for writing books, well that's even more complex at least in terms of reprints. But first runs would still go through publishers like Amazon which means there's some guarantee of revenue (just not to the projected sums you may assume). But today's small time writer isn't working the gravy train any more than the musician is. If anything, both musician and writer are just could/would be profiteers.

It's blind luck either profession finds success. Copyright doesn't offer much in the way of protection. What happens now is that human beings in general value your work. Thus pay you as we do now. Copyright is just the formality to prevent non-payment from other parties such as publishers. Copyright today isn't much of a benefit even there since many publishers write contracts to their advantage. What should happen is that copyright should largely (and in my opinion solely) apply to companies. And it should be by default that the majority of all proceeds be held in trust to the creator of the work even if the company in question offered the means to produce said proceeds. I think this approach would go further to ensure artists and content creators have a better chance at a livable wage. But it shouldn't include lifetime of the creator plus X years in any capacity. It should be up the creator of the work to register for the copyright as before the 1970s. And it should be easy as filling out a form on the web with a copy of the original work in question for verification with the US Copyright office or its analogs in other countries.
Yes. But they do not have a choice not to work. That means that capitalists can collude to drive wages down to unhealthy levels. Even Adam Smith warned us against this and advised the state step in to help the worker.
How about using electro-magnetic waves to alter the brain function temporarily and provoke it to lose consciousness? Sounds like a hard technical challenge, but we can already deliver effective tranquilisants remotely and use electrical discharge to disable the central nervous system. Just find a more efficient way of doing that.
How about loading the first round with blanks. Some times just the sound of the shot is enough to startle and stop a suspect. Shooting in the air would be an option too, but it could be a little problematic, as what goes up, must come down. The blank option would also give an officer a split second to maybe rethink his actions. And if the officer really needs to use lethal force, it's easy to quickly squeeze off 2 rounds, with the second one being the real deal.
I know why I was downvoted. I heavily criticized startup culture on a community meant for startup folks. ;)

Sidebar: I have Asperger's. It's not a disease, just a difference. And it's definitely not an excuse.
identified a specific need, solved it quickly and efficiently, and then leveraged the fame & reputation from that successful open-source project into a good job at a company that lets them do what they want or a series of consulting engagements supporting that software.

That's what I need to do. I almost did a few years ago, but unfortunately made the mistake of exclusively licencing the project to the customer, for a very cut-rate price. It was a gamble, as it was skunkworks, so it could have paid really well. Instead, it paid crappily, while demand for it elsewhere was abundant. Alas, IP...
glad to see convox is doing good. I'd come across one of the founders at gophercon and found the setup quite interesting
He mentions Python, is there a solution to this in Python? Perhaps Python 3.5 with optional type checking annotations?
> Not only do these type systems allow you to annotate things as "doing side effects"; they specifically disallow doing side effects unless you have annotated the thing as such.

Just below the "Controlled Side Effects" heading.
Making Water More Liquid
Just peeked into the extensions tab to uninstall ghostery and saw this, hopefully it'll get fixed soon.
I would be really interested in that, too. I'm more of a backend guy, not an artist, and I think I would benefit from watching designers do their thing. Not so I could be a designer, but just to know their tools and workflow.
Agreed. Been shooting in the military since 2006, and I just left the active duty Army after 5+ years. Was an Infantry Platoon leader...been to a bunch of shooting courses...This idea that you can "shoot to wound" is just not based in reality. Like, at all.
Shoot someone in the leg, huh. Better not hit that femoral! They'll bleed out in ~2, maybe 3 minutes, depending. Better practice your tourniquet. Watch your background, too, because if you miss that leg/arm you don't wanna hit anything else that bleeds.

One thing I've noticed in watching videos of police recently is that they seem really quick to draw their weapons on a target.

Perhaps that's where we should start, with this assumption that citizens are constant, dynamic threats and that cops, when out on patrol, only exist in a constant high-threat environment. Idk. I'm not a cop, but this place has to be safer than Afghanistan.
The gif is sped up. This vid is actual speed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMM0lRfX6YI

I think it's awesome. But, it obvious that the current implementation will inspire the creeps in lots of people. Sci-fi horror has put an unfortunate bad rap on robotic tentacles and chromed vertebrae.
Those statistics are sobering. I'm not sure what current policy can do to change the amount of people over 25 with a high school diploma - but that could be because of many factors including high immigration from other states (Texas has had net inflows from almost every state for 5+ years) mostly on the bottom end of the scale.

The insurance statistics are also sobering.

But Texas has loads of opportunity and many programs for business development. It would also be easier to save up money to move to CA if you were in Texas than the other way around...