skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
When your startup holds meetups at bars, you're not being nice to marginalized groups that don't do well in these settings. When you haven't examined your hiring practices you're not being nice to the people you've "culture-fitted" out of your organization.

Freedom of association covers this case. If Company A irrationally discriminates systematically against any competent group, Company B can hire members of that group at a discount and beat Company A on labor costs. As companies C, D, E, etc., figure this out, their demand bids up wages, and everyone wins except Company A.

But no. Freedom of association is biased against "marginalized" groups—an ever-expanding set that seems to be converging on "anyone who isn't a normal white (or maybe Asian) male". In the land of the free, "freedom" means "your company can hire whom it pleases, as long as the demographic pattern of those hires pleases me."

It's not the job of companies to make "marginalized" groups feel welcome, or to be a good "culture fit" for anyone in particular, unless you (and the US Federal Government) make it their job. Which it seems you're only too happy to do. Destroying freedom of association? Apparently a small price to pay.
You can handle misspelled variables/bindings/function names in Ruby/Python/JS by linting. That's a class of errors that's easy to avoid anywhere with a good text editor.
Not sure, but that churn rate may also be impacted by these changes they seem destined to make in order to drive profitability:

https://twitter.com/NeilAnAlien/status/627873374505562112
Sex is a great "cure". Do you have a girlfriend? If you don't, then try to find one. Sex with different partners could even work better, but not everyone finds it appealing to them. Forget about work, forget about programming, forget about business. Go enjoy great sex.
ALL of Wikipedia in One QR Code?
6 years for widespread autonomous vehicles on our roads. 2030 for the majority of vehicles sold being fully autonomous capable.
Well, I'd say it's just pride to be so confident in the ability of human engineers to make machines outperform humans consistently (at least in the next few years that vendors want to start selling auto-drivers.) I don't think anyone's doubting whether radar+computer can move faster than a human, but we may doubt whether it will make the "right" reaction and if it might make unwanted decisions in some other cases we don't think of until they happen. And that's just the "AI" level, not stupid things like your electronic throttle's stack overflowing and locking in the open position[1].

[1] http://embeddedgurus.com/state-space/2014/02/are-we-shooting...
Yes, we need some additional standards to build upon it, but at least the decoders exist in Chrome, Firefox and Safari on all modern platforms.

If someone would add a small standard extension (like Microsoft originally suggested) to allow for one-way streams, we could do livestreaming over it, too.

Preferably even make it seamless – allow pointing a video element to a livestream source.
Hey, I didn't know about multiple arguments in search keywords! Are you talking about http://kb.mozillazine.org/Multiple_parameter_keyword_searche... ?
But in this case, the oil industry of Venezuela is completely state-owned, and the government was relying on profits from this to fund social programmes. This is not an inherently bad idea in itself, but if your government spending is directly dependent on a single commodity, fluctuations in its price will affect your entire population.

Compare for example with Norway, which also made its oil industry completely state-owned, but is not in any way relying on oil profits to run the country.
I'm not sure I follow. If Lessig were to step down and hand power over to the vice president, then couldn't the vice president freely appoint a new cabinet?

Even if we got stuck with a crappy cabinet for four years, it would be survivable (see 2000 - 2004) and the good that would come out of fixing campaign corruption would be immeasurable.

>Further, if he is perceived as competent enough to do all that, why would I vote to hire him as chief executive of the nation when he has stated he is going to quit soon after he is elected?

Because he doesn't think he is competent to run the country; he thinks he's competent to fix a specific problem.

I just found out about this guy 10 minutes ago, but I very much welcome this kind of discourse and honestly wish there were more of it.
I like thinking about operating systems, and I am sympathetic to the notion that things could be better than UNIX, but there's some real gibberish in this article.

"Both have flat, useless WIMP GUIs;" ... this has nothing at all to do with UNIX - you don't need a GUI at all in UNIX (which is great) and there are MANY non-WIMP operating environments available - many of which are serious, sophisticated, current offerings.

"Neither has a programmable GUI." False. ion3, for instance, which is one of the many available non-WIMP environments I mentioned above, is completely programmable with lua. I am sure there are 100 other examples.

"Neither is versioned, both are irreversibly destructive." Hard to say exactly what is being pointed out here, but I think it's related to filesystems and going backwards ... and ZFS provides that just fine with snapshots. In fact, even UFS2 has filesystem snapshots. Available on FreeBSD, Solaris, and many others ... including Linux.

"Neither takes account of any modern research" ... again, previously mentioned ZFS ... that's as modern as it gets. netgraph in FreeBSD also comes to mind as something genuinely inventive, unique and modern.

"You can't learn programming from either Unix or Windows." Inasmuch as I would consider the UNIX shell as part of UNIX, you absolutely can learn to program. Further, inasmuch as DOS batch files are part of Windows, you can learn to program there as well. I certainly did.

When was this written ?
I'm having a hard time dating this rant (despite its historical importance, I can't seem to convince WikiWikiWeb to cough up a page history), but I would guess that it's from ~1996. If so, it is a time capsule that represents the stagnant OS thinking in the mid-1990s: the belief was that Unix was dead (!), that Windows was going to be everywhere (!!) -- or that both of these systems were essentially useless and what we _actually_ needed was radical surgery like object-oriented operating systems or microkernels or exokernels or orthogonal persistence (or all of the above!).

If it needs to be said, this time was a terrible atmosphere in which to aspire to OS kernel development, a suffering that I expanded on (at far too much length!) in a recent BSD Now.[1] I do not miss the mid-1990s at all, and even now, I find that this ill-informed screed fills me more with resurrected anger than it does any sense of vindication or nostalgia...

[1] http://www.bsdnow.tv/episodes/2015_08_19-ubuntu_slaughters_k...
Not the best way to balance all interests - then you get into a wonderful situation like we have in the mobile market where there's a closed source, proprietary, unauditable (and therefore potentially hostile) blob running in the radio that can do evil things no matter what the rest of the software is doing.

Personally I like the way that we handle people who point lasers at aircraft: find them, throw the book at them pour encourager les autres, and meanwhile don't try to ban f*cking laser pointers.
It's a great idea, but it would take two terms just to make that proposal stick. It's going to take a lot more work to take money out of politics. Signing some papers and walking away won't work.
> Unix security concepts are built into the system architecture whereas in Windows they are implemented as features on top of the OS. A perfect example that he calls out, ACL. Some does exist in the architecture of Windows, but it is only a half hearted implementation.

I think you have the layering completely the opposite way. NT has security descriptors on everything that has a name. Then above there is Win32, originally bolted on top of NT as a compatibility mode among others, which is historically an API for not very security conscious systems. And most Windows programs out there don't care about the security features.

So it's more like the higher layers suck in this regard.
> Unix security concepts are built into the system architecture whereas in Windows they are implemented as features on top of the OS. A perfect example that he calls out, ACL. Some does exist in the architecture of Windows, but it is only a half hearted implementation.

Huh?

The fundamentals of Windows NT (the object manager, the registry and NTFS) all have ACLs.
This is a very thoughtful essay. I particularly appreciate the insight that his own insights have a shelf-life just as his parents' did.
Numbers 10 and 9 both seem to be incidents where people died in falling elevators: http://listverse.com/2011/12/23/10-tragic-elevator-accidents...

It seems possible that the falls were not caused by the elevator car dropping from a snapped cable, but rather the cable (and possibly the pulleys, motors, etc.) falling onto the car, which then (being pushed by a much greater momentum) dropped, but they are described here as falls.
In other words, Uber would like to create a lucrative monopsony... nevertheless one imagines they are already doing their damndest to extract maximum value from the market while both maintaining overall market growth.
I'm flying up to Silicon Valley tomorrow (from LA) to host a user group meeting. I don't do that every weekend; usually I try to balance work, family and church. But yeah, there's work. (5 year old bootstrapped company; doing it full-time for the last 4 months only. 1 employee, in training.)
Never said they weren't allowed, I'm not making a demand, and I'm not the one PG said is generally a nice person.
Cleaning Up a Trivial Script with FRP and Fairmont
So, privilege is great, and we need to capitalize on and discover new kinds of privilege so we (and our kids) can become captains of industry, Olympic medalists, and the smartest or most successful people in a particular field.

This would sound great if it didn't also reveal the horrifying nature of only thinking about yourself (or, in the case of a parent, your child) and being the best. You completely disregard everyone else, and totally ignore what capitalizing ("exploiting" in his words) on that privilege does to others.

But maybe I missed something.
The problem I have with your response is the implication that it is a binary choice.

For a healthy economy and happy people you have to tend to both business and individuals pushing money and regulations this way and that so that both are successful. When both are successful you only need minimal resources to keep them that way. What you can be sure of is that both pure hands-off capitalism and 20th century communism lead to serious social ills. The societies doing best in the world seem to be social democracies which though experience have taken the best of the extreme ideals of previous centuries.

It's much harder, though, to rally for careful deliberate moderation. People around the world try to make complex matters simple and take them to extremes because it's easy. Real progress, real improvements, real better futures require careful consideration and balance.
Microsoft Bob.
Thats correct. I dont know that much about Venezuela. Do we have records to show that its entirely funded from oil profits? What if a country doesnt have any other thing to make profits than oil. Same is the case for gulf countries.
People like to talk about immutable.js. It's not common.
High fives and hugs.
What motivation would Congress possibly have to cooperate with an intentionally lame-duck President? The President is not able to unilaterally push through legislation, and the idea of using a presidential election as a referendum is deeply flawed.

However, his platform is admirable and I hope he draws more attention to electoral and campaign finance reform. Perhaps this movement could be redirected toward a constitutional amendment? That would be both more feasible and more effective (since it wouldn't be vulnerable to repeal at any time).
what we _actually_ needed was radical surgery like object-oriented operating systems or microkernels or exokernels or orthogonal persistence (or all of the above!)

Do we not?

I watched your interview, but I don't recall you saying anything about research ideas. You even made a jab against Spring which rubbed me the wrong way.

An orthogonally persistent microkernel-based operating system, even another Unix, would be great. Which is why I'm looking at MINIX 3 and Hurd as interests. The latter has its anachronisms, but it's still a step forward.
Yup, we have to motivated to change the world if it is. Otherwise when we all think about the money, the driver of excellence will become less and less. Same thing happened on me when I am driven to make something to get money. I don't want money so I quit. Now I am creating something that people want, not just creating money
History has proven how destructive central planning and government intervention is.

Yet, most would find such claim to be debatable or even unacceptable.
Their usual strategy is to enter a new market, and pay drivers a higher rate and charge customers a lower rate (or provide discounts and coupons) to encourage growth. Once they're established, adjust those rates until they balance supply/demand.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CLcMATPUsAAWceX.jpg:large
The TOS you quoted says:

You acknowledge and understand that you
may be communicating with such persons
and that we are not responsible for such
communications.

But AM is directly responsible for many (a majority of?) such communications. It's their employees doing the communicating. AM saying that they're "not responsible" is a blatant lie.
Writing code that writes code with Hack Codegen
> I am forced to recognise that the ideals of the regime in Caracas are not translating into a robust economy even though I wish they were.

What about prior to 1999? The people running Venezuela had many decades and centuries to create a "robust economy" in Venezuela. I wasn't seeing constant US headlines about how Venezuelan leaders were mismanaging the economy in those times.

Venezuela is being hurt by the same thing hurting every oil producing state - low oil prices.

Those in Venezuela who wanted to create a "robust economy" had decades to do so. As soon as power falls from their hands, everything becomes a crisis, they suddenly notice Venezuela lacks a "robust economy".

The PSUV has been continually reelected since 1999, they must be doing something right, the people of Venezuela keep putting them into power.

Remembering the New York Times editorial page celebrating the coup d'etat against Chavez's elected government, by the head of the Venezuelan business council, who, surrounded by the heads of the military, abolished the parliament, I'm slightly skeptical of the concern of the owners of US media outlets for the economic well-being of the average Venezuelan.
You speak as if humans are really good at making driving decisions today. We're really not.
People say hyperinflation will never happen because the road to it is quite clear and governments would never make that mistake ever, and yet here we have a government doing it with eyes wide open.
Some people call it the "Green Lantern theory of presidential power" -- that for one person with sufficient purity of intent and force of will, anything is possible. But the President doesn't get a magic ring of cosmic power, and the American political system was specifically designed to prevent rapid, radical change without comprehensive and unified support from all three branches.
Thanks for setting me straight.

So after reading that stuff I'm still not impressed. Might be me, I worked on SunOS and we did "objects" for the VFS layer. It was like a class with all virtual methods. Worked well.

Full on object oriented stuff in an OS seems weird to me. But I'm not an OO person, I like really simple stuff, SunOS made that work, I hacked vi so that when you tagged on VOP_OPEN it knew that there was ufs_open and nfs_open and tmpfs_open and you could walk all of them, but it was very simplistic. And as such it actually worked.

I like stuff that works, proven in the field, proven in the development space, we can ship this and can support it.

I may be well behind the times but what I read didn't make me want to go work on it, it made me skeptical about it actually working in real life. I'd be happy if someone proved me wrong, it sounds cool. When is it shipping?
MultiBit HD Release 0.1.3 is now available
you might want to look at clojure again. that comment reads like babble
I'm really looking forward to watching this talk. I recently wrote a tool that uses Perl 6's Supplies to monitor directories/files and take various actions when changes are detected. By using reactive programming with Supplies, the whole program reads in a declarative way, and chains of actions can easily be modified and combined. Here's an example: https://gist.github.com/muraiki/222814d5928f648be3c1

If you've used the Reactive Extensions library across any of its various supported languages, Supplies are very similar (and IIRC were inspired by Rx). It's very powerful and I look forward to using it alongside everything else Perl 6 brings to the table, both PCA-related (for lack of a shorter term for Parallelism, Concurrency, and Asynchrony) and otherwise.
QKD Simulator – Analysis and Simulation of Quantum Key Distribution
Governments hardly ever do that. 99% of the .vn oil money went to Chavez supporters and sycophants, and 1% actuallly went to the people. And this 1% doubled as a way to earn, cheaply, support from left-wing, well-meaning people like you.
Huh, how does that follow? This was clearly a case of terrible planning and disastrous intervention. That doesn't
mean that all planning and all intervention is bad.

Frankly, no planning is bad planning.
I find it honestly surprising that people can both lament the state of campaign corruption in the U.S., and then dismiss someone who displays -- by all appearances -- a genuine intent on fixing the problem.

I swear I see comments endorsing constitutional amendments to this effect daily on HN. You can question the likelihood that Lessig gets elected, but you certainly can't fault his program.

A program doesn't have to fix everything in order to be a significant step in the right direction. The only conclusion I can draw from this is that you people don't actually want to fix anything.
I wasn't aware, thanks for the clarification!
Larry puts forth a number of very wise points. I think we need to go further by eliminating PACSs altogether and that limited donations may come from named individuals and must go to a specific candidate only; neither organizations, issue PACs, super PACs nor "personhood" corporations.
You seem to have a particular political axe to grind. Fair enough.

> It's not the job of companies to make "marginalized" groups feel welcome, or to be a good "culture fit" for anyone in particular, unless you (and the US Federal Government) make it their job.

That would be the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which makes it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Yes, it is your company's job to ensure that you are hiring fairly across all marginalized groups.

You are free to "associate" with whomever you wish, at all times. But when through seeming coincidence some 96% of tech jobs are held by men I'd say there's something larger afoot.

My theory is sexism. It provides a testable hypothesis that has been proven multiple times. It makes predictions on other effects we'd see. Those have also been proven.

What's yours?
I think we need a functional userland (like nix) and a microkernel (like minix), at least.

Sadly we will get a userland full of container-ized apps (via systemd) and a monolithic kernel (still linux). Worse is better.
this is really nothing other than very straight forward "Insurance". In the long run, the optimists almost always win. Keeping money sitting idle and constantly rolling short dated put options is not a particularly sophisticated trading strategy.
In the 90's, don't know when exactly. I remember when this site was active :) Showing my age. Back when wikis were new and /. was the nerd forum of choice. Ah those heady times.

But seriously, this pre-dates ZFS for sure and ion3 I don't know about.
I've always understood his position as implying that he'll pocket-veto anything else that passes his desk, and nothing interesting (like, oh, passing a budget) can get through today's Congress with a supermajority. It's in Congress's interest to get the stupid reform bill passed as quickly as possible so that a normal president can sign the rest of their bills. (Presumably this would be most effectively paired with an establishment candidate as VP who intends to run for re-election, so that he/she is answerable to the party bosses as usual.) And they have pretty good political cover for voting in favor of these bills: they can tell their constituents that it's all the fault of this ridiculous Harvard academic that the outgroup voted for.

Rolling Stone did an interview where they asked him what happens if something goes wrong in the timeframe between when he takes office and when Congress realizes they should just pass the bills: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/meet-the-president...

RS: But what happens if you get elected president, and then — before your big bill gets passed — Iran goes crazy? Who, then, deals with the ayatollahs, or ISIS, or whatever the crisis is?

LL: The person who is elected the president. That person has to convince the public that, in the case of something extraordinary, they could act as a kind of leader that the nation needs at the time of crisis.

RS: You're saying you've got the qualifications to make those kinds of decisions in the interim?

LL: Absolutely. If I'm not qualified to be that person, I shouldn't be president.

I trust Lessig to be a reasonable-enough person that in the event of war or some other national emergency, he'll suspend his pocket-veto policy, and either act like a real president or resign unconditionally and let the VP take over. I agree with him that if you don't trust him to do that, you shouldn't vote for him.
As noted on that page:

> WARNING: Preliminary data! Errors, anomalies, and other peculiarities should be expected.

We sent them a PR as their example app was doing things like html form CSRF token generation, session fetching, and heavy logging, - all for JSON apis. Phoenix has pipelines to explicitly segregate these kinds of request overhead when they aren't needed. They also used a very low database connection pool size. Hopefully they merge the PR shortly, and re-run the tests to properly represent us. See own series of benchmarks here:
https://gist.github.com/omnibs/e5e72b31e6bd25caf39a#results
There are easier ways to 'print money' than running the printing press. You can just sell bonds (used to pay bills) and then have your federal bank buy them using computer accounts with numbers in them. In the US this trick is done first through Goldman Sacks who takes their cut for performing this sad act of inflation.

As the federal bank buys the bonds, it not only floods the markets with more $$$ it also drives the interest rate down which devalues the currency as nobody wants to hold something which isn't giving them a return.

This causes prices to rise as the value of your currency decreases. You have to keep doing this if you can't pay your bills (which is what the US did via QE).

see here: https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/TREAST
Not really. It makes money now because it loses money at all other times, and the reason why it's potentially profitable is because most people couldn't stomach investing in a portfolio that is designed to lose money 99% of the time.
Well, whether it acts more correctly becomes a moot point when it acts correct most of the time, then it's about what acts more safely. There are advantages to having a system that's not allowed to be lax when it comes to safety rules.