skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It's not, but it's close.

For example, if you go to buy a brass valve for some plumbing work, you will see two things:

1. A label that states "LEAD FREE", possibly stamped into the metal surface of the valve body itself.

2. A Prop 65 warning to California residents that the valve contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm.

We can only assume that this is because "lead-free" does not actually mean that the item contains absolutely zero atoms of lead; it has a specific technical definition (NSF 61G) that is intended to prevent or greatly limit the likelihood that lead will be leached out of the fitting into potable water. According to California, that's not good enough, so you get a helpful stamp telling you that your fitting is lead-free and also a warning from California about (one assumes) the fitting's lead content. Umm... so is the fitting suitable for potable water system use or not? Thanks, California!

(Example, if you're feeling lazy: http://www.homedepot.com/p/Everbilt-1-2-in-Brass-C-x-C-Full-...).

Prop 65 is basically useless, in that it requires you to be informed that a product, building, room, etc. contains one of a few basic classes of harmful substances, but it doesn't require that you be told what those substances are or anything else about them (like whether they're in a form that can harm you, how to avoid them, etc). Even worse are the countless manufacturers who have seemingly taken to labeling every product with something like "Prop 65 warning to California residents: this product may contain chemicals known to the State of California to cause {cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm}" (emphasis mine). If you want to know whether it actually does, what those chemicals are, or the concentrations or forms in which they are present, I hope you work in a materials testing lab.

And, oh yeah... the "Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act" and Prop 65 are one and the same, in case you weren't aware (see http://oehha.ca.gov/prop65/law/P65law72003.html).

None of this means that Soylent doesn't contain heavy metals in dangerous concentrations. It does mean that we can't really rely on a Prop 65 label, or a violation of Prop 65's labeling requirements, to tell us whether it does. If you want to know that, you don't need California law books, you need a mass spectrometer and related lab equipment.

Personally, I'll stick to eating things that I grew myself. They might have heavy metals in them, too, but at least I don't have to worry about whether some Chinese supplier snuck a little something extra into some random "food" manufacturer's supply chain and neglected to tell anyone about it. But your life, your choice. Just don't expect the label to give you any guidance.
>I really appreciate the effort that went into the performance part of this work. There was a real effort to try and make it sound like a reasonable representation of humans playing...a little off beat, out of sync at times.

That said, there's a certain ways that humans interact when they play together (even if they track their parts independently).

Just being a little off beat randomnly doesn't capture that, and can sound fake just as being perfectly on beat.

There are a few algorithms about how actual players interact, here's a relevant study: http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/a...

There are several more for real-life like quantization/humanization.
He also mentioned in the previous post that they were going to look through all to make sure they do not save duplicates.
> If holding on to a belief requires you to rationalize that everybody else is stupid and wrong may be it is time to re-evaluate your belief.

Hardly. There's plenty of valid criticisms of OO out there. However, that does not mean every criticism of OO is valid. Take this one, for instance: the author is complaining that OO is optimized for class inheritance, when it's not the normal case. However, plenty of OO languages don't have classes, or inheritance, and so it falls on its face as a criticism of OO.

> If OOP were that good how come nobody made a killing with an implementation that would make these 'true Scotsman' folks happy.

Because no OO implementation will make them happy. A little unsolicited worldly advice: programmers think themselves paragons of rationality, but they're susceptible to the same flow of fashion, and the same desire to believe ill of something they don't like, as everyone else.

> other paradigms don't seem to need such pervasive apologism.

They do—take a look at the comments when articles come out critical of functional programming, most of which are as good as the one under discussion here. Or when OO supplanted structural programming the first place.
15 Free Android VPN Apps to Surf Anonymously
What I find interesting is that A star, DFS, BFS, Dijkstra's algorithm, JPS, etc are all basically the same algorithm. The only real difference is the queuing priority. (BFS is LIFO, DFS is FIFO, Dijkstra is min-distance-from-start-first, A star is min-distance-from-start-plus-(admissible,ideally)-heuristic-distance-to-end-first )

Most CS courses I've seen teach them as entirely separate algorithms, which I find... frustrating. Or rather, unnecessarily complex.
Not to complain, but I find it surprising that the web pages for such prominent academics/people are often so ugly. Why not pay some web designer to spruce it up? Or maybe have the department/school use a nice template? Seems worth it to me.
While I think this is an important problem to solve, it's not lost on me that this isn't an easy problem to solve. It's complicated further by design decisions like no stack unwinding and current behavior. I'm not sure they can change the current behavior without having a backwards incompatible change.

It's also not a unique problem. The Linux guys have been working better handling OOMs in the kernel. There's been some interesting discussions in the last year how to guarantee forward progress in filesystem transactions in the face of OOMs (in the middle of transactions).
I switched due to being frustrated with many Google results being SEO'ed to death. Sometimes one has to dig 3-4 pages to find a decent result. I got the feeling that if what I was searching for was commercialised, I should expect it to be quite hard to find neutral or deep results (kind of how when you're looking up a company, all you'll find in the news are PR releases disguised as industry articles).

My subjective and anecdotal experience has been that DDG filters the signal out of the noise much better in 80% of situations. In both personalised searches (e.g. for restaurants, which should be geo-localised, a recent search from Singapore sent me to Connecticut...) and for some specific items where Google has built some custom extra logic, such as movies or "site:", the added keystrokes of !g is not much effort. So I haven't switched back. It does feel like Google is a little smarter on some searches but - and I can't think of an example straight off the cuff - sometimes too smart for its own good and stuck in local optima. DDG offers a less noisy, more generalised view on the world which I prefer most of the time.

One nice thing about personalisation is the integration if you use a lot of Google products. For example, when my brother sent me his flight details, the flight was automatically added to my calendar, and Google Now showed me details on the day including the terminal and luggage belt, reminded me to leave on time and estimated the Uber wait time and even the fee (not to mention Maps can send you straight on to the Uber app with the start and end points entered). These things are either incredibly creepy or, if you trust Google and can't afford humans to do the same job, very useful.
I've been using literate programming for 15 years on many projects. The largest and most visible one is Axiom
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom) which currently has many thousands of pages with embedded code.

I've talked to Knuth. He claims he could not have implemented MMIX without literate programming. Literate programming is really valuable but you only understand that once you really try it. I gave a talk on this subject at the WriteTheDocs conference:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Av0PQDVTP4A

You can write a literate program in any language, for instance, in HTML:
http://axiom-developer.org/axiom-website/litprog.html

There are some "gold standard" literate programs:
"Physically Based Rendering" by Pharr and Humphreys won an academy award. "Lisp in Small Pieces" contains a complete lisp implementation including the interpreter and compiler. The book "Implementing Elliptic Curve Cryptography" is another example.

Suppose your business depends on a program. Suppose your team leaves (they all do eventually). Suppose you need to change it... THAT's why you need literate programming. Nobody is going be around to remember that the strange block of code is there to handle Palm Pilots.

Companies should hire language majors, make them Editor-in-Chief, and put them on every programming team. Nobody checks in code until there is at least a paragraph that explains WHY this code was written. Anybody can figure out WHAT it does but reverse-engineering WHY it does it can be hard.

Imagine a physics textbook that was "just the equations" without any surrounding text. That's the way we write code today. It is true that the equations are the essence but without the surrounding text they are quite opaque.

Imagine how easy it would be to hire someone. You give them the current version of the book, send them to Hawaii for two weeks, and when they return they can maintain and modify the system as well as the rest of the team.

Do yourself a favor, buy a copy of Physically Based Rendering. Consider it to be the standard of excellence that you expect from a professional programmer. Then decide to be a professional and hold yourself to that standard.
Seems to be fairly common; another lawsuit by the same organization over cadmium and lead labeling: http://www.confectionerynews.com/Regulation-Safety/Lead-and-...

California can't actually ban products with levels that meet federal thresholds due to federal preemption in the field, but they can add labeling requirements, which they've done under Proposition 65, which requires products or facilities not meeting the CA thresholds to post a warning saying,

> WARNING: This product contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm.

If you've been to California, you've probably seen those all over the place, e.g. a previous office I worked in had such signs posted at all the entrances. Beyond posting the sign, there is no other requirement, e.g. reducing levels isn't mandatory. Also, the federal vs. CA levels are sometimes orders of magnitude different.
The FAQ on the linear book scanner site says the following,

"Prototype 1 could scan the majority of books without damage, but may tear one or two pages in some books. Out of 50 books tested, 45% had one or two of their pages either torn or folded. This is a very early prototype and there are many areas for improvement in the design."
Well, it's a CSS thing these days (a:visited), and something that an awful lot of other sites these days sacrifice in favor of looking more shiny and uniform.
How to Set Up Cron Job for PrestaShop Amazon Market Place Module?
> the principle states that the laws of physics don't vary across time or space.

This is a special case of a Noetherian invariant: all global conservation laws follow from a symmetry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem

> Indeed, properties of spacetime change from one location to another, so one could be inclined in formulating only "local laws of physics", and stating those laws change from location to location according to mass distribution among other things.

Ummm...you got it right on the first try, whereas this restatement has gone into the weeds. Local conditions (values of variables, you could say) change; the laws do not.

The final part seems to go back on track again, but by then I'm confused what you're saying.

Perhaps you're just using some kind of counterfactual as a rhetorical method or something.
>Am I the only one who actualy finds DuckDuckGo's search results overall better?

At least for vague technical queries, I still find googles results vastly superior, consistently .
Yes, it is a feature of the default browser stylesheet, but many websites override it. DuckDuckGo, for instance, keeps all of its links black and uses the :visited pseudo class to show the checkmark.

Even if it's default browser behavior, keeping it around is a specific design decision.
For the same reason we did 25 years ago. If I somehow get network access to your machine I'll blow out a stack and have root. Yes it seems difficult but it's easy to get wifi passwords and people use the same passwords and ....
2 tru, all networks are hostile until you takeover

then they're frienly, to a pt.

by that I mean witness the fitness of network evolution in a hostile environment
Game theory works fine. Tsipras simply blinked.

The power of Greece's argument was that in a case of a Greek default, the EU could either do their current QE * 30 for a month or two, paying all of it to Greece's lenders (like they did in 2008), or face nearly all regional banks going bankrupt.

Discussions weren't going well. The EU froze most of Greece's bank accounts, and ... then Tsipras simply gave in, seemingly getting very little in return.
> most fast-growing startups have oral cultures where the way to learn about the software is to ask the last person who worked on it

"Oral culture" - I like that euphemism.

It's not disorganized, confused, poorly-planned, and glaring technical debt, no, it's "culture."

> Most real-world products face new requirements on a weekly, sometimes hourly basis

If your requirements are changing on an hourly basis, it's time to have a serious talk with your project manager.

> Google/Alphabet, which wasn't even the same company last week

Let's not pretend that some corporate moniker shuffling had overnight effects upon their codebases.

> Because software changes so rapidly.

So you don't have time to change your tests or other dependencies?
Which is pretty much everyone reading HN.
I appreciate your enthusiasm and agree that your stated goals are important. But if you are serious about this project having an impact, you may want to get some feedback and help with the voice of your presentation. You talk of saving the world, but you are mainly talking about "you" saving the world. It comes across as grandiose ... Please speak clearly about your project and its specifics and less about you if you want people to listen.
OO was around since he late 60s. The reason it went away has less to do with compute power than people realize
Thanks so much for this detailed response. I played with literate programming for a bit and I had a similar experience: lots of extra overhead to get things properly documented. Unfortunately, (as nostrademons put it in an earlier comment) if we tried this at our web shop our competition would eat our lunch.
Super super common for professor sites, particularly at CSAIL. They value the functional aspect more I suppose.
Governments are concerned with entrepreneurs engaged through the net. Because governments are made up of former dealer/slangers who went "legit" liek bushes and others of that ilk
I find the results worse, especially for the technical stuff I have to deal with most of the day.

However the ! commands are what keep me using DDG. They're a gamechanger.
Meet the Scary Little Security Robot That's Patrolling Silicon Valley
anxiety
n.	A state of uneasiness and apprehension, as about future uncertainties.
n.	A cause of anxiety: For some people, air travel is a real anxiety.
n.	Psychiatry A state of apprehension, uncertainty, and fear resulting from
the anticipation of a *realistic* or fantasized threatening event or situation,
often impairing physical and psychological functioning.

Emphasis mine. That's all I'm going to say.
> safe harbor levels enshrined in Prop 65 are unrealistically low

If I understand the regulations correctly, the Prop 65 limit for lead is about 100x more restrictive than EPA standards for drinking water.

According to http://oehha.ca.gov/prop65/pdf/safeharbor081513.pdf the Prop 65 Maximum Allowable Dose Level for lead is 0.5ug per day (assuming the lower of the two safe harbor levels applies).

According to http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/index.cfm the EPA's action level for lead in drinking water is 15ug per liter (and people drink more than one liter of water per day).
Doesn't sound like these people matter anyway. It's like saying "might lead to druglords being killed".
I would disagree that the eye spends any extra time "joining" multi-character sequences. I think it's a matter of what you're used to looking at. I find many of these ligatures harder to recognize than the familiar ascii representations.
Hiring a Tech Ops Team (video and Transcript)
Proof that Netflix doesn't need all that effort to deliver a laggy, annoying, UI. Seriously, the core functionality is essentially the same. MovieLens seems like it might replace Netflix for me. Not-terrible recommendations and a decent UI. Though I've only been using it a few days so we'll see, but it can barely end up worse than Netflix eh?
> but I have no idea what existence refers to.

A lot of brilliant famous mathematicians in history have been befuddled on that point as well.

I think it's a linguistic issue, which perhaps you are hinting at.

If I say "that rock exists", in the real world, that meaning of "exists" is parallel to, yet different than if I say "prime numbers exist".

It's hardly the first time that one word meant more than one thing.

The linguistic "exists" is a "deictic" -- I can point to the thing.

The mathematical "exists" means "come, let us reason together, and I can demonstrate to you abstractly that this one thing is inescapably implied by this starting point".

(Phrasing borrowed from Leibniz's commentary on Calculus Ratiocinator)

They both have a similar final state, I suppose: that we are convinced of the "existence" of a thing, but nonetheless the existence in each case is in a separate realm.
I don't know skwirl, maybe he has a wife and kids and he can't financially support a career move?
صيانة تكييف – صيانة سنترال 51387985
I think it's fairly similar to anyone at a senior leadership level most anywhere. The world doesn't stop turning and problems don't stop occurring just because it's your weekend, and the decisions on how to solve these problems have to end up with someone.
One feature I've added to my own generative testing tool [1] to mitigate this problem is to save the random value that made the test fail and add it to a set of deterministic test cases that always need to pass before the tool will try any new randomized cases.

Of course, if you discover a test failure on a very low-probability corner case, other people working on their own branches probably won't trigger it. But with the right workflow, the situation shouldn't be all that different from adding a regular test case, which could always fail once attempt you merge it with someone else's code that wasn't written against it.

[1] https://github.com/DalekBaldwin/check-it
In which case it's no different to Linux, OpenBSD or whatever.

As long as its your account files that matter, and you're running an app un-sandboxed, then it has access to them.

Nothing Windows or OS X particular about it.

As about "ruining your system", no, without root privileges it cannot, in either OS X or Windows. Of course it can if there's a privilege escalation bug, but there are tons of those for GNU/Gnome/KDE packages too.
I think it's great because it exemplifies the spirit of the Web, like back in the Geocities days. He probably wrote the site himself and really has nothing to sell or market. His name, the domain, his work, and his CV are all that's necessary.

It's all about the text.
I have absolutely nothing against Soylent, and I've thought about buying it, but for what it's worth, this post has +20 points in under 30 minutes with one comment, and it reads like a PR retaliation.
Yes everything which tells me to do the stuff I don't want to do is extortion.
3DS: Ironhax and Tubehax Exploit Files Released
MHTML to PDF Conversion, OSGI Framework Support, Enhanced PDF to PNG Using Java
Perhaps some people thought this was some kind of racist remark?

I'm not Chinese, and this is a historical fact.

Japanese borrowed heavily from the (earlier and more advanced) Chinese civilization.
https://github.com/clojure/test.check
Greece has a lot of problems, but I don't think it was specifically expanding welfare systems, at least as I understand the term welfare (programs aimed at the poorest segments of society). Health coverage isn't universal and excludes the long-term unemployed; there is no income-support or cash welfare-payment system for the poor; no public housing at all, no rent-assistance program, etc. Even post-Hartz4 Germany has a more generous welfare system, never mind the more social-democratic countries. Without mentioning what a country like Denmark provides, we can look at the U.S., not usually thought of as the most generous welfare state, which has programs like Medicaid, food stamps, EITC, TANF, and Section 8 that Greece lacks any analog to.

Greece does have quite a lot of middle-class and upper-middle-class entitlements, like good benefits for government employees, extremely generous employment terms for doctors, fairly good unemployment insurance for the temporarily unemployed, early retirement for professionals, etc. These tend to support people who already have more money, though. A possible exception is that the pensions in some cases act as a de facto welfare system, because pensioners are expected to support their unemployed kids, so in the case of poor households, one pension supports a meagre lifestyle for 3-4 people. So as long as you have at least one pensioner in your household, there is some minimum level of guaranteed income. If you don't, say that you're a long-term-unemployed 40-year-old who doesn't have family support, then you're pretty much screwed. At best you may try to get some support from the church, which runs soup kitchens and such.

And of course it has a big tax-evasion and corruption problem, also largely among the better-off segments of society, which causes problems on the revenue end.
A link directly to Soylent's Prop 65 page: https://faq.soylent.com/hc/en-us/articles/204197379
That's a fair point.

http://justinjackson.ca/words.html is one of my favorite articles.
The others might failed to understand that these are the tools not the talents to pursue their career.
> Soylent insists its products are "completely safe and nutritious"

Based on how many years of market experience? Based on how many studies ? Oh, none. Yeah, "completely safe" - except that we don't know what happens 10 years down the line - the kind of timeline that matters for cancer or other long term disease.
I switched today. I actually find the results to be better in my case. For example, I don't have to groan every time I search for something web related and get w3schools as the first result.
...its figures appeared to be based on the assumption that people eat "nothing but Soylent everyday, 365 days a year, forever"

Maybe they got that impression from the marketing image in the article with the text "What if you never had to worry about food again?"
I would love to hear opinions from other HN users that would actually use this product. Clearly there are people that would love to forget about food--I don't understand the appeal myself.
As a consumer of Soylent, I am looking forward to any and all information about this hitting HN.

It sounds like there aren't dangerous levels of heavy metals, and this suit is brought because it will cost Soylent less to settle than to do their own testing?
we accord all legal representations

--raasclaat sections in your system

per legal representations in 50 states of the union
bare minimum