skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Ok - I see how it solves the automation problem. But it means that humans and bots are accessing different web resources to get the same content - it abandons the original idea of the World Wide Web where a single content resource was expected to be used by humans and computers alike using a unified, simple syntax.
Hello there,

I'm the creator of Evolvr.io. We are fixing the rough spots as quick as possible, and would love to get in touch with you to know where these things are pretty rough. Honest to god, I've been replying to over 3K emails in the past 48 hours. Listening to all the feedbacks and improvements.

I've replied to some amazing people over here at Product Hunt => http://www.producthunt.com/tech/evolvr-io-2. We want Evolvr.io to be the most authoritative place on the internet to find any company or product's story, in a very beautiful way.

We are also integrating this with some of the most powerful APIs on the planet, and more info on that will be posted soon once we sign those deals. But seriously, thanks to the OP of this post. Would love your feedback anytime. My email ID => karthik@skcript.com :)
> It would be nice if there were some smaller browsers that didn't focus so much on backwards compatibility

There are lots of those.

> but on leveraging the most important features so that most of the web could be browsed, still without sacrificing end-user security by implementing each and every feature and performance tweak.

That's simply not possible. Even if you restrict yourself to the Alexa Top 100, browsing is impossible without implementing most of HTML5, JS, CSS3 (media queries + gradients + borders + flexbox + ...), SVG, etc. Even if you restrict yourself to just Wikipedia, most of the Web platform gets used (including some uncommon stuff like multicol).

If you want this to be viable, you need to convince Web authors to stop using the features you don't like.
First of all, the reverse of this situation (buying up lots of Treasury notes) is the basis for the Fed's "Quantitative Easing" policy, which was in place for most of the past decade and is credited with holding down US interest rates. So, government economists clearly believe that the price of these notes has a downstream impact on interest rates.

Second, the China sale is not "artificially" impacting bond prices, any more than I'm artificially impacting the price of avocados if I start buying all of them. As long as the price is a fair market price, then it's by definition not artificial, because everyone is participating by their own free will.

Third, the reasoning for this impacting overall interest rates is that debt is a commodity. There is currently a balance in the market between investment in, for example, Treasury bonds and mortgage-backed securities that takes into account many factors such as yield, perceived risk, liquidity, etc. If Treasury notes suddenly become cheaper and offer a higher yield, then some money that would have gone into new mortgages will instead go into Treasuries. With the same number of borrowers competing for less money for home loans, the cost of that money (the interest rate) will go up.

Again, the key point is that the impact on Treasury rates is not artificial, it's a real consequence of the sell-off of China's holdings. One last analogy -- if I dump millions of gallons of water "artificially" into a reservoir, the river that it feeds will flood for real. It would be pointless for the people downstream to argue that the flood is artificial.
My take is that we will see it used on cell therapies like CAR-T. Id point out that Novartis and Intellia have signed a deal to this effect - see link below.

Immunotherapy is likely a clear win for this kind of genome editing technology. Any sort of ex vivo modification and repatriation of cells (like bone marrow transplants) are a good fit.

Personal eugenics is extremely unlikely in the West. It is also very far away because of this regulatory burden. Id just point out that there are cases where you might find this kind of thing permissible. For instance the other day a friend of mine who went through IVF with his wife said "imagine if we had one good embryo from three rounds of IVF, and that one embryo had cystic fibrosis - would you really be comfortable stopping me from repairing that?"

I found it hard to say "yes we should stop that". But I also recognise that if we allow that, its only a small leap to allow anyone to edit anything they want, for whatever reason. Drawing the lines will be tough.

For the deal I mentioned:
http://www.xconomy.com/boston/2015/01/07/cart-crispr-1st-of-...
> Launchd may not be a 100% function for function equivalent for init(8), but it does replace it, along with the rc subsystem.

You are right. I was drawing on quite old knowledge regarding the OS-X boot process in thinking launchd worked in collaboration with init(8) and friends. Apparently, it has been this way for some time[1].

I have been aware of launchd replacing rc.d since its introduction. What I did not realize is that it supplanted init as PID 1. Knowing that this is the case, I am less likely to support its adoption FWIW.

1 - http://aplawrence.com/Words2005/2005_05_15.html
Independently of the generality of your remark, here we have the very specific case of somebody not even knowing how the Servo is implemented or developed suggesting that the Servo developers should do how he says, not how they do, without giving any real proof of benefit to anybody.
Oh thank you for correcting me. I just saw the free trial things.. that has remind me wordpress.. and I run out..
> "Then Gracie jujitsu decided to re-brutalize judo."

This isn't particularly true. I think the poster was thinking closer to Vale Tudo (and, of course, MMA), which BJJ has close roots with.

BJJ is a descendant of Judo in that it essentially takes Judo to its logical conclusion. Judo (and BJJ) begin standing. But Judo ends with a simple series of points (take down into, maybe, a submission).

BJJ goes until someone taps. That is, you start the roll standing (or kneeling, which is more lax) and continue sparring until a submission is performed. Judo would stop after the take down and quick sub attempt.

The Gracies, however, did initially use BJJ as a form of self defense. It's still very much an aspect of rolling to go for position over submission. While you can submit from traditionally vulnerable spots, you can also nullify your opponent's offense, such as in guard.

Ultimately, however, you want to mount them or take their back. In a street fight, this dominate position would let you strike and choke with ease.

In fact, a lot of early BJJ schools would have people from other martial arts who would dojo storm. There's a pretty well known story where one BJJ teacher (I forget who off hand) told his students to not strike with fist. Only slap.

So they would mount the opponent and slap at them until they could choke them.

I enjoy doing BJJ because I can train and spar at whatever intensity (light, medium, hard), and even go compete at tournaments, without injury. You learn your limits and tap early and often.
Thank you. I am sorry, I am no native speaker!

Unfortunately, I can not change the post any more.
102 performance engineering questions every software development team should as
ATS is configurable to allow arbitrary loads, but specify which domains you wish to keep secure. The author of the above post failed to document or mention that. Most developers will have known domains that they wish to keep secure, and there are options available to do that.
Evaluate JavaScript code blocks from within markdown
Pixar movies from Finding Dory onward will be exclusively raytracing, FWIW.
Physical buttons are far, far better than touch buttons when you're driving. Keep your eyes on the road, use tactile sense to figure out the button to press, once you've learned where it is.
Maybe someone will prove me wrong (and thus irrational), but I believe you're mistaken about what "rational" means:

The definitions and synonyms for rationality (found, e.g., with Google Define) are heavily clustered around reasoning, i.e. the ability to reach valid conclusions from your premises. Nowhere do I see mention that your information had to correspond to reality.

If I were to believe with great certainty that my wife is an alien breeding a cluster of biological weapons that will destroy all of humanity, and assuming that I want to prevent this from happening, reason would compel me to kill her. It would be a completely rational act.

People get this wrong because holding such beliefs is typical for crazy (= irrational) people. Because to _arrive_ at this belief, unless it was imposed on me through drugs, brain damage or brainwashing, would involve some major failures of reasoning at some _earlier_ point. I would have to e.g. believe that I was privy to information that the rest of the world didn't have, which is a pretty unreasonable thing to believe, given what every adult knows about how the world works.

Less radical example: At some point in history, it was considered common knowledge that the world is flat, and seafaring too far in any given direction runs the risk of falling off the edge. So sailors were afraid to sail too far. Was this fear irrational? Not at all! Based on the best human knowledge at the time, people had good reason to be afraid. That fear would be irrational for a well-informed person of our time, sure, but only because we meanwhile have access to better information.

Hypothetical: Maybe there's a meteor headed for Earth, due to destroy us all in a month. Let's say for now that this is reality - but we don't know it because NASA hasn't seen this meteor yet. If rationality were based on absolute reality, then the rational thing for us to do would be to build spaceships or blow our life savings on drugs and hookers. But that's silly, because we can only base the well-reasoned-ness of our actions on what we know. And for lack of omniscience, everyone's knowledge will always be imperfect, and with perfect reasoning (= rationality) our actions can only be as good as the information we have.
Yeah I need my job !
Should Ashley Madison buy cinemas? What AshMad users are looking for
A barebones OS kernel written in Go
I'm not sure who I would call first, but if it led me to the FBI then I would probably expect the Computer Hacking and Intellectual Property Unit (from leereeves link) to do the investigation/prosecution. It also seems odd that the FBI would respond so thoroughly on such a short notice, as if they had already been communicating with the company, although that could just be because he was about to leave the country.
The exception is specified in the app's Info.plist. You won't be able to tell just by looking at the app on your iOS device, but you can download and unzip and IPA, and directly look at its plist to see if it has the NSAllowsArbitraryLoads key or not.
If you care about 0-60 time, you're probably getting a Corvette ZR1 or a Hellcat. If you want something with more than a Cobalt interior, a BMW or Lexus. If you want top of the line with bleeding edge tech, you get a Tesla.

Disclaimer: Tesla investor.
The Website MLB Couldn’t Buy
Exceptions are not about going from one place to another. It's about unwinding the stack properly and calling the destructors of variables on the stack. This is not a close emulation at all.
You're missing some important points:

- He is confirmed to have accessed a whole bunch of stuff he had no business accessing leading up to being let go.

- He wiped his laptop and moved sensitive company data BACK to the laptop from an external device after having wiped it

Many people wipe their laptops.. most people don't try to make it look like they didn't wipe their laptops, and when they're called out try to use the external drives as leverage for a better severance package.

The degree to what he was up to is definitely up for debate, but no doubt in my mind this dude fucked up several times.
> You're viewing the HTML-only version of Flarum Community. Upgrade your browser for the full version.

Thanks but my browser is already the latest version. At least you show something without javascript.
South African prototype may solve solar power problem
> Do you disagree with that factually, or were you annoyed because you don't like the choices people make?

I don't disagree with that factually, but I strongly disagree with the implied sentiment that this is due to some law of nature, whereas research so far indicates that all human choices, and in particular "aggregate" or statistical choices made by groups are very, very strongly influenced by social pressure.

> Would you, if you could, change other people’s choices by changing social pressures to fit your agenda?

Thing is, research shows that any choice is made under external influences, they shift constantly, and so far those influences result in a very skewed balance of power. The thing we feminists care about is this distribution of power. Our agenda is to reduce the strong social pressures that actively maintain power inequality so that they maintain it less strongly. Opposing this agenda means you're in favor of keeping the social pressures as they are, i.e. continuing the ongoing practice of actively maintaining inequality.
Open-sourcing at Inaka
Think about the range of preferences held by Nazi high command as it became apparent they would lose the war: Some were prepared to go to their deaths and take as many of their own citizens with them in the name of ideology. Some desperately wanted a way to save their own skin, some were really trying to the greatest good for the greatest number.

A 'preview bomb' announced through diplomatic channels would lend itself to debate among the top leadership that had everything to lose in defeat: life, power, and "face".

Given that time to debate, there's more room to compromise with the hawkish view of adapt to the new weapon and keep resisting through rural and guerilla means. Japan's main play was to "rip off the steering wheel in the game of chicken" by saying we have every last person on this island ready to go kamikaze, you sure you want to walk into that? The actual bombings were probably necessary response of "ripping off our steering wheel" too. Basically, leaving no doubt as to the ruthlessness was essential to achieving the desired end - surrender without negotiation. Otherwise the US would be the impossible position of basically valuing the lives of Japanese citizens more than their own government which was prepared to use them as pawns.
> If you have regenerative braking most of the time that's electric

That's just a confirmation of my footnote not an answer to my question. Is an F1 with KERS or a truck with hydraulic regenerative braking a hybrid?

> not that it runs off of batteries for an amount of time that you feel is long enough.

That I agree with actually.

> Since you don't like my definition of hybrid, and you think it devalues the word (despite being completely in line with the Wikipedia definition) why don't you at least offer your definition.

That it can use its power sources independently.
The US government not spending money looks like:

-- Hiring freezes, or even furloughs or layoffs
-- Delays in capital projects (new buildings, bridges, airports)

This means less money in the pockets of employees, as well as less money to contractors, who have less money to pay their employees and suppliers, and so on. If people have less money, then they can't spend as much money, and thus the economy grows less fast, or stops growing.
Well, algebra is a language created with the goal of making simple things easy to communicate. Yes, I'm getting in a tangent and calling operations in an infinite and non-countable basis "simple", but just try to do anything complex in non-linear algebra and it all falls apart already, never mind completely discontinuous functions.

Category theory is a language created to communicate complex models. If it's not obvious yet that you can't use CT the same way you use algebra, let me state so: you can't. CT must be less powerful than algebra, because you can't reason about complex stuff as easily as you can reason about simple stuff.

Yet, one mostly can not write a program nowadays without using CT. There's no language that does not implement a subset of it. You don't notice it for the same reason that fish do not notice the water.

But as powerless as CT must be, it gives you plenty of tools for simplifying your models, and not having those tools available can only make your program more complex, never simpler.
A former Google exec on how to make tough decisions quickly
> Placing the burden of proof it on the person making the claim simply prioritizes the status quo, which may or may not be what you want. Given our status quo is the product of proven, vicious discrimination against women, protecting the status quo through allocation of the burden of proof is the opposite of what we want.

Except that presuming the opposite allows us to flap around on the whims of opinion, unsupported by factual evidence, and thus allows us to do things that are massively harmful to the long-term well being of women (such as raising a generation of men after the inflection point on gender issues which faced institutionalized discrimination in places such as universities), and thus undermine our own end-goals through emotive decisions rather than rational ones.

The problem with the current approach is that you can't continue it long enough to cause the necessary change to restabilize the social trends, because the accumulated backlash of your intentionally inflicted injusticed builds faster than your positive social change, and you've simply entrenched a good reason to retaliate (they were intentionally discriminated against by a group who had previously suffered discrimination and knew what they were doing), and have already entrenched that intentional infliction of injustice is the means of correcting past injustices.

Far from changing the underlying social dynamic, the intentional discrimination against men actually reaffirmed the status quo one meta-level up from where your concern was: women will be just as sexist towards men as men were ever to women, given the chance, and even when they are personally "concerned" with the topic of discrimination.

Because it failed to use science in developing its methods, recent feminism has been a massive failure: far from standing against discrimination, modern feminism has demonstrated that women believe gender relations is a game of tit-for-tat, and they should be positively discriminated against by men looking for retaliation over their intentional discrimination anywhere that feminism has acted in excess.

This is a destabilizing force in gender relations, and should be set aside as an immature view. Instead, we should look honestly at the situation and develop a stance from actual ethics, rather than emotions.
Google already has a solution for this, why are they ignoring it?

Google allready supports 2FA with the new U2F protocol. With this protocol the app id (uri) is part of the process and its provided by the browser. Thus phishing attacks will fail.

Sadly Firefox and other broswers do not yet support this, only Chrome. I really hope this replaces the old 2FA TOTP style and specially SMS.

For people who want to use both, there is a nice solution. You can use YubiKey as your U2F token and for websites that don't support this you can use the YubiKey as your 2FA with the help of a android app called 'Yubico Authenticater' and NFC. I prefer it to Google Authenticator because I can move between android devices (just came in useful when my phone broke).

Google does not yet support NFC U2F on their mobile browsers as far as I know. Thats very sad, I really want to be able to disable HOTP solution.

See the protocol here: https://image.slidesharecdn.com/fidou2fin10minutescis2015-15...
http://nuitka.net/pages/overview.html
Interviews with Pike et al. have always made clear that Go actually was made to compete with Java and C++. I wouldn't argue with that.

But the rank and file as represented on HN among other places presents Go as a replacement for Python all the time. It's one of the most common memes about Go. And this sets up expectations Go wasn't designed to fulfill. When a new user honestly reports that Go doesn't fulfill those expectations, we yell at him as for making a dishonest and unfair comparison when really, we set up the dishonest and unfair comparison ourselves when we promoted Go as a replacement for Python. As long as we continue to promote Go that way, we should expect people to compare them, and we shouldn't yell at them for making honest reports that Go and Python are different in ways they are designed to be.
for println()
"These functions are documented for completeness but are not guaranteed to stay in the language."

http://golang.org/ref/spec#Bootstrapping
I'm a Tesla fan but the 7 series still wins in "recharge" time.
This is a strange comment. On the one hand you're chiding the parent for not considering other viewpoints, but on the other you're making assertions about driving dynamics and 'the factors that actually effect [sic] your life every day' that imply they value the wrong things.
One-Third of Schools Are Using This App You've Never Heard Of
> There's plenty of apps out there written in PHP.

Yes, there are. I didn't say there weren't. I think PHP is great, relax.

In my professional experience, however, I don't see people start a codebase from scratch in PHP anymore. It's almost always based on Node.
As someone who lives in Canada, I want to be able to adjust heat, radio, etc with gloves on.
I took a peek at the source code. Extensions are Composer packages that hook into the core dispatcher, while the frontend extends Mithril components written in ES6. I'm in love.
Non-technical direct management.

This tends to include many of the things listed by others here, like not having estimates accepted at face value (because they don't understand development), lack of communication of business goals (because they believe developers just implement, they don't understand "product"), lack of consideration of developers' ideas (see last), deadlines without input from development (because developers will inflate their estimates)... But for some reason, developers can't just learn management, they have to find someone "skilled" from the outside, technical understanding be damned.
Having experience in both, there are far fewer injuries in BJJ than Judo.

While BJJ does practice takedowns, it is not the primary focus of the sport, where Judo always starts standing.

You rarely, if ever, get injured from a joint lock, even when rolling (sparring) or competing in a tournament in BJJ.

Wrist locks and heel hooks are mentioned and practiced early on in BJJ, but they are not permitted as techniques to use on or by white belts while rolling. It is certainly a riskier submission, as you don't tend to feel it before it's too late, but I have never seen someone injured by a joint lock in years of training when it wasn't admittedly their fault (ie: they didn't tap when they should have).

But I have seen quite a few shoulder injuries from takedowns, in both Judo and BJJ. People need to learn how to fall properly, but accidents do happen.
How can you exceed your max value? This has always bothered me, its pretty much admitting "We kinda pull numbers out of our butts." When I see this in other media, like movies or games, it seems to be a direct response to hype or personal politics. Maybe CR is overly green and wants to promote EV's? Reminds me of when Obama got a Nobel Peace prize for things he will do in the future.

Also, the Simpsons did it first:

Tralawney:	Listen, we've been meaning to have a talk with you about
your reviews. Everything's a rave! Nine thumbs up, what
the hell is that?

Homer:	I've given out my share of bad reviews

Beaumont:	Oh, the only bad review you gave was to a slice of pizza you
found under the couch.

Homer:	It lost some points because it had a Hot Wheel on it.