skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I think there's a market for dogs like this in the private sector. Given that "Bear" found stuff in wine racks, magazine stands and between sofa cushions, it would seem like "Bear" could help find lost or misplaced electronic bits and bobs for a small finder's fee. That would probably be a better use of such dogs than searching suspected pedophile's houses.
Same here. I guess I figured they were for the "bad" teenagers in my neighborhood, who wouldn't be caught dead in an arcade.
Maybe the mirror would hit the optics otherwise and would have to be moved back, resulting in smaller field of view, requiring more sophisticated optics.
Extensions breakage is not the same as low browser stability though.

Keeping things working is not solely the task of mozilla devs, extension developers have to do their part too.

Sometimes it's easy easy as toggling off some experimental feature or installing a beta build of that extension.

At other times you'll have to report a bug yourself.

And sometimes extensions just die because they're unmaintained. It happens eventually.

That's nothing unique to developer edition. You're just more likely to see something that'll trickle down to release builds soon anyway.

Personally I've managed to live with some annoyances on nightly for a few weeks until they got fixed.
It also doesn't mean there will be one. Uncertainty about the future of an API is bad, it always causes developers who build on that API to panic and assume the worst.
German Car Makers Wary of Apple but Seeking Cooperation
Found it:

http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/OO_programming/_pdf/Pitfal...
My takeaway has always been "It's easier to fix a memory corruption bug than it is to determine if the bug is exploitable"
Pretty obvious isn't it? If no-one knows about your search engine, they're not going to petition to have your results altered.

And even if you were asked and didn't, would the petitioner actually escalate it to being taken to court?

And on top of that, now we all know if you've got a search engine gathering data on EU soil you need to comply with EU law, you can build the functionality in from the beginning anyway. Which isn't prohibitively expensive.

I don't know why you're grasping at this 'cost' straw, search is fantastically profitable. The search engines now have a social responsibility the EU courts have given to them to comply with, which costs a little but of money. It's like crazy laws like 'no pollution' or 'have safety equipment'. This one's 'stop algorithmically persecuting individuals'.
> You can tell this to Europeans until you are blue in the face but they will not listen. They think they can impose their censorship on the world.

> Yeah, totes weird how Europeans expect companies operating inside Europe to obey European law

And two good example of people thinking that Europeans/Americans/etc are just one big homogenous organism.
I cannot disagree more strongly with this. It is essential for a small business owner and/or startup founder to understand the fundamentals of business finance -- at a minimum the basic accounting equation (A = L + OE). Outsourcing that knowledge to someone in finance is a recipe for the "accountant" to steal all the money in the corporate bank account. Only once they understand how to do it, should they then proceed to outsource the work to someone else to minimize the distraction to the core business.
This is an amazing practice. It's the double blind method applied to hiring!
Maybe a monolith!?
Knuth wrote something along the same lines about himself: he didn't think he was all that good so he worked his ass off (and got a bleeding ulcer back in the 60's). Of course, he was all that good and the hard work certainly didn't make him less good.
> An interesting opinion that I've heard from a person who's made a huge contribution to US education is that [...] What brings the average down, however, is the fact that there are so many (mostly) South American immigrants who are forced to study in a language other than their native language, which is not the case in most other countries.

Well, if that's really an opinion on US education from "a person who's made a huge contribution to US education", that's pretty sad statement for US education, even before considering the more detailed claims. South America isn't a particularly significant source of immigrants to the US (even if you only consider immigrants for whom English is not their first language.)

When the most basic, obvious, and widely known facts are this badly messed up...
Hackpad source code
That still only covers extentensions that have already been invented.

It doesn't solve the problem of letting people tinker to discover the need for a new API in the first place.
Lucky for you there's an article explaining exactly that: http://blog.golang.org/gos-declaration-syntax

---

I like the map. Here's the rules for Conway's Game of Life as a nested map:

var cgol = map[state]map[int]state{
alive: {
0: dead,
1: dead,
2: alive,
3: alive,
4: dead,
5: dead,
6: dead,
7: dead,
8: dead,
},
dead: {
0: dead,
1: dead,
2: dead,
3: alive,
4: dead,
5: dead,
6: dead,
7: dead,
8: dead,
},
}
Yes, that, but they also go beyond that. I found it today:

http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/OO_programming/_pdf/Pitfal...
The time is right to re-examine the L.A. freeway
Apparently he said similar things but not exactly this quote. Still true though.
Fields are real because perturbation theory (Feynmann diagrams) is unable to describe solitons, vorticies, monopoles and bound states.
Move over Amazon! Packages could one day be delivered by unicycle drones
Prune: A Tree-Based, Home-Row-Oriented Code Editor
(By the way, we do teach this stuff at YC. But obviously we only fund a small percentage of the startups in the world.)
From the Firefox announcement:

Re: Why they are removing XUL:

"XPCOM and XUL are two of the most fundamental technologies to Firefox. The ability to write much of the browser in JavaScript has been a huge advantage for Mozilla. It also makes Firefox far more customizable than other browsers. However, the add-on model that arose naturally from these technologies is extremely permissive. Add-ons have complete access to Firefox’s internal implementation. This lack of modularity leads to many problems.

A permissive add-on model means that we have limited flexibility in changing the foundations of Firefox.

...

"The tight coupling between the browser and its add-ons also creates shorter-term problems for Firefox development. It’s not uncommon for Firefox development to be delayed because of broken add-ons. In the most extreme cases, changes to the formatting of a method in Firefox can trigger problems caused by add-ons that modify our code via regular expressions. Add-ons can also cause Firefox to crash when they use APIs in unexpected ways.

Re: When XUL is being ripped out

Consequently, we have decided to deprecate add-ons that depend on XUL, XPCOM, and XBL. We don’t have a specific timeline for deprecation, but most likely it will take place within 12 to 18 months from now. "

Re: The gap in capability

"A major challenge we face is that many Firefox add-ons cannot possibly be built using either WebExtensions or the SDK as they currently exist. Over the coming year, we will seek feedback from the development community, and will continue to develop and extend the WebExtension API to support as much of the functionality needed by the most popular Firefox extensions as possible."

-------------------------------

It's overly optimistic to assume add-on developers will have new versions ready in just a year if the API they're expected to rewrite everything in isn't even ready yet. I can understand why Mozilla is making this move, but it's being rushed. If WebExtension were ready today then this announcement would be more reasonable, but it's not even close!

Hopefully Mozilla is just trying to scare their add-on developers into action, so they'll speak up and tell Mozilla exactly what they need from WebExtension.

Starting over in a new API means a lot of existing add-ons will probably die anyways, but hopefully the important ones will make the move if Mozilla gives them enough time and support.
People will switch to using non-silicon based mediums of storage that a dog will not have the options to sniff out.

They already have moved beyond hardware when it comes to storing the types of things they are searching for anyways. Serious.
It's true that the new model will be more limited. But you can't deny the old model had downsides. That's why Firefox is moving away from it, and why no other browser uses the old model.

It might be interesting for someone to make a browser that is easily extensible in every way. That probably wouldn't become a mainstream browser, so it wouldn't compete for market share with chrome, firefox, edge, and safari. But it could be fun for power users.
> It's about seeing a recurrent problem, then helping people by fixing it

And perhaps this is the first step in that process.
Exceptions are hard to get right in language design. They're easier in a garbage-collected language like Python, because there's not so much need to release stuff. Most of the bad reputation of exceptions comes from C++, where the combination of exceptions, RAII, and having to release memory results in problems.

Without exceptions, programs seem to develop too many "goto" statements. Go suffers in this way. Error handling in Rust seems to excessively complex, and hiding the complexity inside macros that do return statements is an ugly solution to the problem.
Pilots have a panic button. It's called squawking code 7500. Alerts ATC that there is a hijacking situation (7700 is general emergency.) Guns in airplanes are a bad idea for, well, quite a few reasons.
> "The first thing to understand: rules apply only to the powerless."

This has nothing to do with internships, the UN, or any particular office or division. It's a universal truth. Yes, everyone who is considering an internship should learn this if they haven't already, but not because it will help them decide where to be an intern.
Yeah, still better than ext2. I think part of it is that many people expect the file to either not have grown, or have the data you wrote to it.

IIRC (and I'm a bit hazy) here were other issues too that have been since fixed. The long delay between write and commit meant that a lot of bugs that would otherwise have been vanishingly rare got exposed. Likely the ext systems have/had similar bugs that just have only happened a single digit number of times in the past 20 years.
There is no mention of Meteor in that article?
I also have a friend who works in the stats department in NYC. Back in 2011, he was getting paid almost 90K salary (not including benefits like you mentioned) and he told me that he loves his job because there's little or no responsibility and is certainly not challenging. He's still at UN and I haven't talked to him in the past couple of years. That and my personal experience interning at NGOs have convinced me that these jobs actually are quite chill and well-paid with little or no actual work (the hard work like field trips are usually delegated to locals, who are paid significantly less than the management, who are usually foreigners).
> Not everything has to have a visual metaphor. This is again a case of pushing some idealistic principle too far, in my opinion.

True.

But, for example, GNU Smalltalk doesn't need GUI?

https://www.gnu.org/software/smalltalk/manual/html_node/Tuto...

One maintained Smalltalk implementation with GUI that can be tried:

http://squeak.org/

"Squeak is an open-source Smalltalk programming system with fast execution environments for all major platforms. It features the Morphic framework, which promotes low effort graphical, interactive application development and maintenance."

For other opinions about the death of Smalltalk, there was a link to c2 resources called WhyIsSmalltalkDead on the HN just 4 days ago:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10071681

What I certainly agree is that the successful language has to be able to interact with as much as possible on the host system, as efficient and as flexible. Note that we still use Fortran code, for example, for numeric libraries

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAPACK

and that C easily links and calls Fortran routines.
Just a silly rant against the UN. There's many of those.
Tough luck. You will have to rebook and likely pay full price.
It always seems like languages that typically are used in an all-encompassing environment are at a disadvantage when it comes to widespread adoption compared to languages that anyone can just start using in their existing OS, with their existing GUI, editor, etc.
I completely agree.

However, the point still remains that "handing over more power to the government" is a thing people have legitimate reason to fear. Particularly in an era where there's so much concern over the judiciary (from Roe v Wade to Citizens United, everyone has something they think SCOTUS screwed up badly) and the independent press (not asking the tough questions pre-Iraq war, seemingly giving Obama a pass on various scandals) and government transparency (Snowden leaks, Guantanamo, Benghazi).

So the things that we need in order to trust the government with more power aren't as strong as many people feel they should be. Simultaneously, the government has a track record of trying to change peoples' behavior in both above-board and behind-the-scenes ways, through everything from tax policy (mortgage interest deduction to encourage home ownership) to astroturfing (infiltration of various dissident groups, including those devoted to non-violence) to draconian drug laws (leading to disproportionate imprisonment of black men) and requiring people to purchase certain forms of health insurance.

It's against this backdrop that "the government wants to limit our behavior" is often evaluated. Even in areas where it actually makes a lot of sense -- like pricing externalities into carbon emissions via taxes -- it's worth asking whether the government is reaching farther than they should in order to accomplish something more than what's been publicly stated.
You can still tinker when building firefox from source.

I agree it's not as convenient as the default builds being open to such modding, but that's the point - the default builds should be safer because 99% of users don't tinker.
Why not? It seems like additional evidence to be skeptical of these organizations and their hiring practices.
Show HN: CopperheadOS – A hardened fork of Android (just released our alpha)
Simplified dependency injection in Node.js (nwire.js)
I have been using Pale Moon x64 as my daily browser for years now. I have run into a few issues with extension compatibility, (ex: Greasemonkey has issues with versions newer than 1.15.1) but support is generally pretty good. I see it as a viable alternative to Firefox, but it could benefit from a little more mainstream support.
Star Trek fan? Check out how every redshirt dies
This site's moderation system is crap.
Please read my comment above. I lost hope on these UN and NGOs since I interned at a few INGOs (three) before going to college. I'd certainly recommend you to donate to charities that gives directly to the people (not the middle management and people who work) and the ones that have good transparency record.
A scene repeated countless* times during the 80s and 90s:

"Hey man, wanna do these drugs I have here?"

"Nah, William S. Sessions says not to"

"Who?"

"You know, William S Sessions! Director of the F.B.I."

"Oh right. Guess we mustn't then"

* In this case, countless means zero.
Most of the environmental impact on IQ comes from nutrient deficiencies and diseases (especially in childhood). Most of the variation that isn't explained by biological heridity is simply unexplained at the moment. It is wrong to attribute all of it to the environment in the normal sense of that word. My guess is just noise during the construction of the brain.

(And of course races are not clearly demarcated. Duh! There are still populations, though, and there tend to be differences, big and small, between them.)
Most languages I can think of that would be better than C have solid non-C implementations. Ada has GNAT, a free software compiler that is itself written in Ada. Rust's compiler is in Rust (and, years ago, OCaml), though it uses LLVM, which is C++, for code generation. Go's reference implementation is I believe fully Go, although parts are mechanically translated from C. OCaml is mostly written in OCaml. etc.

Besides, the problem is not that C is malware, it's that it's a bad language to write in. Once code exists in C, you can make it solid (https://sel4.systems is the logical extreme of that). So using a C-language compiler but doing actual development in not-C gives you way more defense-in-depth than doing day-to-day work in C.
The Law of Credit and Competition
The concern is basically that they may cover most bases, but will decline to allow some things that could be done today.

Even if they'll support the popular use-cases. What about the fringe uses?
The nuance is that the SEC prosecutes under the civil code by default.

https://www.sec.gov/News/Article/Detail/Article/135612578701...
Given Maxime's background notable background in JIT and optimizing compiler research, I'm quite disappointed that her argument for Smalltalk's failure is the simplistic and routinely thrown around canard of "pragmatism".

Why condemn Smalltalk for its idealistic vision when a lot of functional languages that are so trending are just as idealistic?

(A few notes: there are implementations of Smalltalk these days which do not involve graphical environments. GNU Smalltalk is the most advanced.

The assertion that textual mediums for writing code are always superior over visually enhanced ones isn't an argument so much as a culture war. It's also self-evidently of little weight, as the benefits of having a full-fledged Smalltalk VM are immediately visible.

Furthermore, the idea of Smalltalk as the hermit kingdom that locks you in to its toolset isn't as true anymore like it was in the past. Tools like Monticello can interact reasonably well with the outside world: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/8244502/version-control-...)
I don't know if it's very smart to limit one of the most distinctive features of Firefox, the powerful add-ons available. Erodes the differences between Firefox and other browsers. If Firefox is going to be just another Chrome, people will just use Chrome.
Debt Is Good
I'm one of the creators of GO CUBES. I loved the point-counterpoint here. Startups often toe the line between absurd & interesting, because that's where innovation happens. Making nootropics as accessible as cup of coffee is no small feat.

Curious to hear what people think!
To state the obvious, that won't have Javascript support.
The final comments about Scheme seem like a digression from the thesis. Scheme is almost the antithesis of Smalltalk, in that only an essential core language is provided.

I suppose she's arguing that "good is somewhere between Smalltalk and Scheme" but the closing came across as offtopic, as if she were surprised to find that a language famed for its minimalism was actually minimalist.
Disgust in Rome at mafia don's glamour funeral complete with Godfather music
I've been working as a consultant for the UN for a while now, and most of what she writes is spot on (unfortunately).
you are right, I've worked with a few. Problem is that it's a cost to the company they often don't want and they don't value the work (I think this is what SA is trying to change). Also, vetting/hiring folks etc. is it's own burden. VC pushing this gets rid of the friction and forces founders to take this seriously.

Agreed they may have divided loyalty, hopefully mitigated by a very temporary relationship and the fact that at early stages, VCs and founders should be super aligned, at least around the ops numbers (sale decisions, etc. are a totally different ballgame for sure).
We don't have to go back to the beginning of the universe to get to the fundamental limits of human knowledge. There are computational limits that stop us from gaining knowledge about things that exist today :)
You can't compare counts of published vulnerabilities when organizations have vastly different standards of publication. Open source projects (e.g. Firefox, chromium) publish everything, even internally found flaws. Closed-source projects tend to publish only those reported by external reporters, not ones they found internally. At least one hopes they are also fixing lots of internal bugs! They might not be, in which case a low vulnerability count could actually mean they've got lots of unfixed vulnerabilities.

What about attacks found in the wild? Flash takes the cake there, although that may in part mean its ubiquity makes it a useful target.

In any case you can't use Flash to browse the web. You are already taking on the risk of whatever vulnerabilities lurk in your chosen browser; using Flash is adding vulnerability risk on top.
"Children, children! Do you want to be like the real UN or do you want to argue and waste time?" -- The Simpsons
"If its for educational purposes (looking into how algorithms work across distributed systems)"

If it's for educational purposes, you don't need any hardware at all, as there's no aspect of it that can't be fairly easily simulated in software.

It's a toy.
Good point, but I've changed enough of the specifics that I don't think he/she will be outed.
Wow that Robert Martin talk has not aged well. I couldn't imagine that being a talk at Rails Conf now. Good info, but it feels a bit off 6 years later.
Rewriting public branch history is not generally used by any major project except in extreme circumstances. This reads like an attempt at satire by someone who doesn't understand the actual utility of history rewriting in git, which is generally for extending version control to your development changes (e.g. what is more formally codified in Mercurial as the draft phase).
Have you considered the possibility that founders aren't being charged with felonies left and right because they're not committing felonies left and right?
Correct, of course :) Maybe it's not that good example... I was trying to come up with a way to obfuscate the speed of light limitation (one usually thinks of poles as rigid). A thing I like about those is even if they're really simple they highlight limits like the Bekenstein bound: you can make your experiment arbitrarily large, but if you allow it to shrink arbitrarily (as a function of n), you get unexpected results (essentially BSS machines[1] versus Turing machines?) -- in your example you could actually sort the numbers in O(n).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blum%E2%80%93Shub%E2%80%93Smal...
>And yes, I know that you will be consulting with addon authors about api functionality, but i guarantee tons of stuff is still going to be lost...

Not to mention all the potential extensions that nobody has thought up yet that will no longer be possible and probably never will be. The ability to experiment and try out new ideas that nobody had thought of before is what gave us a lot of the extensions people use today. An API that tried to imagine all the possible features people might need and then locked down everything else would have prevented a bunch of the extensions that are popular today.

This problem exists for the web in general though (being a tightly controlled sandbox where only features agreed on by all the vendors are allowed). So I think Mozilla is probably institutionally incapable of understanding the problem, since it undermines the central mission of the entire organisation - which is to convert all end user software into software that runs in a vendor controlled sandbox. People who appreciate the creative cost of tightly controlled sandboxes probably wouldn't go to work for Mozilla.
>Scheme doesn’t include the most basic string routines.

Whoa, really? Racket, arguably the most popular Scheme implementation, seems to have a nice standard library with tons of implemented SRFIs. Also, it seems to be gaining popularity (albeit slowly) not only for itself but for Lisps in general.