skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Re-interpretation of Newton in light of quantum mechanics and relativity are part and parcel of scientific revolution according to Kuhn. Science weaves a narrative of progress. The extreme example, and the subject of Kuhn's earlier work was the Copernican revolution: we still get the heliocentric model presented as an astronomical refinement not a form of heresy. The standard science narrative doesn't see Newton through his own eyes, as principally a theologian, either: he spent a lot of effort trying to prove the existence of god [so did Descartes despite Discourse on Method].

None of this is to downplay their intellectual contributions. It is only to illustrate Kuhn's assertion that science constantly redefines past literature as continuous with incompatible contemporary beliefs: any interpretation of Newton's work orthogonally to the existence of god does not accurately depict his views.
Previously discussed: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10168214
Just finished, in the following order:

- Blindsight

- Echopraxia

- Colonel

by Peter Watts. Though I should've read the 'Colonel' before 'Echopraxia' in the hindsight.
Metal-Mouths: America’s obsession with perfecting its teeth
This looks really awesome - can't wait to try it out!
Its coding against a live running program rather the an a dead text file. Makes a code change, press C-x C-e and it happens in real time.
Stop fapping if you are hooked on porn.

yourbrainonporn.com
reddit.com/r/nofap.
When did those ideas become widespread?

My parents, both scientists educated in the 1950s, never heard of them. They followed a pretty simplistic notion of scientific methodology, that mainly revolved around intellectual honesty: Report everything that you observe, and be willing to change your beliefs when confronted with new information.

I never heard of Popper or Kuhn until after I finished my science degree, and then, only in the context of debates about evolution versus creationism. But I don't know if I'm typical or not.
Ah, you're right. In my defense, there is some butane and a butane lighter at the beginning of the video :)

Is there a way for me to update the submission title?
You may be diappointed to know that Windows' cmd.exe will automatically open the default associated program, so all you need to do is enter the filename if you've associated image files with a default viewer:

http://superuser.com/questions/246825/open-file-from-the-com...

(I suppose a similar thing could be done on *nix with a suitably modified execlp()/execvp().)
It would be great if you could put a live example app up.
> I am trying to say, however, that it's not some grand trick that frees the user from thinking about monads.

This brings us back to the discussion of what it means to be "thinking about monads". When a cashier hands me change, is he "thinking about groups"? Is a Rubik's Cube whiz thinking about groups? Sometimes people are better at something by thinking about it in a completely different way. That is the exact meaning of duality: two things are the same, but different circumstances may make looking at it in one way more useful than the other. A "push" API (of which "PFP monads" or the "monadic style" as I call it, is an example) and a "pull" API are also duals, yet I believe that when writing concurrent code in imperative languages, the pull shape is style preferable.

As discussions about cognition might make some PFP people uncomfortable -- we all should just think "in math", right? (I'm kidding. Mostly ;)) -- we can take this back to theory and say that switching between different representations requires computation. In fact, it can be argued that all computation is simply about changing representations and encoding things. 4 is 2 x 2, but going from representing that same thing as "2x2" to "4" is what computation does (and the lambda calculus computes just by substitution -- namely, by "doing nothing" from a mathematical point of view). All this is to say that going from looking at something one way to looking at it another way actually requires some computational power and is not free.
Presumably your boss hired you to do the CSV parsing so he can do other stuff. No point having a team of people all with exactly the same skills.
This Algorithm doesn't create a Van Gogh or a Picasso, but rather merges an artists style with another. If the algorithm were given two different photographs, what would the result be?

This is clearly pointed out in the Gandalf example. Though the resulting image may mimic Picasso's style of line and color, as a whole, it was unable to recreate the randomness and asymmetry of Picasso's style.
I'm not the OP, but what you say resonates with me as well.

May I ask what domain or field you work on?
Invalid link.
What are you talking about? Of course your publisher isn't going to pay you more.

Amazon pays 70% of retail. How much is your publisher paying you, assuming you earn out?

"But you might want to look up what the average revenue is"

The average revenue for traditional publishing is close to zero, because 90% or so of the writers never get a publishing deal.

"Hint: I do this for a living."

Yes, I understand that you dislike the prospect of competition. That's not actually my problem.
Wow, how? I use urxvt and dindn't know that.
A bunch of cut up PDFs is a rather frustrating way to release something for free. That said, these galleries are pretty fantastic.
Let's incorporate it into systemd. That will solve everything.
Tweetstorm: how to keep thinking new ideas?
> All of them failed to notice that a .png file had “eval(‘foo’)” PHP code in it.

I have found CXS[0] extraordinarily successful at identifying this sort of thing.

Before someone says it, I agree that "nuke it and restore from backup" is the ideal solution. But since we're talking about hacked Wordpress servers, we're probably already talking about "cleanup after the intrusion" on unmaintained servers with limited management and backups.

[0] http://configserver.com/cp/cxs.html
"it's just that Amazon was allowed to take a loss on the sales"

That is absolutely not true.

The marginal cost of delivering an ebook is so close to zero that it's hardly worth calculating.

Amazon (or anyone else) can easily deliver ebooks for $0.99 and still make a profit on every single sale.
You can try overriding the blacklist in Chrome, that worked well for me when I needed to for a Debian/Nvidia system a couple years ago.
Adding heartbeat to Redis Redlock
they LIED, not the first time, not even the first time this month
For easier use, you could even alias `cat` to run `file` first, then pass to your image viewer or whatever if it's not a text file.
F# also has first-class tuple types. But the better way to look at it is that you can have records and can put them in sum and products. Then for compat, there's the types for .NET's OO system. But sure, that's an increase in complexity in F#.

Yet in C# you have hard-coded keywords for things like System.Threading.Monitor (the lock keyword). This doesn't exist in F#-the-language, but is implemented via a simple function so it doesn't count. (Just like you wouldn't consider System.Math.Max part of C#-the-language).

In C#, you have hard-coded operators, whereas in F# they're essentially just functions (compile-time type parameters work similar to _Generic in C11). In C# you have hard-coded LINQ and async syntax, whereas in F# you don't (just one general construct for computation expressions).

People cite stuff like F# pipelining, but that's not a language feature, it's just a function. C# and F# both have quotations, but F#'s are more complete, not a one-off to implement LINQ-to-SQL. That reduces complexity, or is at least a tie. (In the way that arithmetic over integers is less complex than arithmetic over int32.)

Type extensions are another case of this. C# has them, but only partially implemented (extension methods), whereas F# implements the feature in a less complex way that provides more coverage.

OTOH, F# does stuff like transforming Int32.TryParse to match as a tuple (nice, but a complication). And it also has really ugly things like this one: Explicit parameter names take higher binding than = operator. Example:

Foo(Bar = Baz) // Calls Foo with argument Bar with value Baz
Foo((Bar = Baz)) // Calls Foo(bool) with result of (=) Bar Baz

My gut feeling is that once you subtract F#'s stdlib and add in C#'s plethora of edge cases, you're not actually significantly less complex in a meaningful way using C#, and F#'s improved uniformity wins out.
I don't think that's enough to solve this problem. If you replace money by utility, it seems like it would still be a paradox.
The systemd folks have been saying all along that it's just a standardized and stable interface and anyone else can implement that interface. I'm glad to see this, because it's testing the claim: if it's true, that means wonderful things for OpenBSD portability, and if it's not true, we should be more cautious about coding to systemd's APIs.
They can smuggle it in via attributes. But if they don't make this part of the CLR spec, then not really cross-platform and more like C#'s extension methods.

Ideally these features would be designed at a higher level, in the CLR, aimed to target as many languages as possible. I.e., they shouldn't be proposed as C# extensions.
Yes. There's some horrible, horrible work out there from "respectable" publishing houses. You don't get to claim "quality" when you've obviously been too cheap to pay someone to rekey the damned book.

Of course, the quality of paper books is also horrible nowadays. Crap paper, crap printing, crap binding.
It's true that Newtonian physics has not been discarded, but I think you're greatly underestimating the intellectual chasm that had to be crossed to get from it to relativity and quantum mechanics. The idea that not only velocity but also time, distance, and mass are relative; the wave/particle duality; the uncertainty principle; quantum entanglement; curvature of space-time -- all these were shocking, mind-bending ideas at the time they were first broached. They all seem to fit together neatly now, in retrospect, and we understand that Newtonian physics is a useful approximation that is quite sufficiently accurate in a lot of everyday situations, but the way we think about physics now is almost inconceivably different from the way we thought about it 200 years ago.
so the application has to be aware of the log publishing strategy, and the application itself writes its log output directly into a zmq socket?
This is how Google is killing the Web (2014)
And never underestimate the amount of time that a teenager, with all the time in the world, would dedicate to this.
You have a point but I forgot we were going back to Alchemy and before.

Phlogiston theory was overturned but the idea of oxygen is still standing strong despite the major advances in chemistry since 1773. Other puzzle pieces have been placed around it but they're additions to it. Even if the universe turns out to be a hologram the idea of oxygen will survive.

Once the big puzzle pieces are found they're rarely removed. Since the big shift towards empiricism most "revolutions" and paradigm shifts are happening in new areas or at different scales than the old ones. Much of what are being called revolutions I would call explorations of the unknown.
Tesla is about to prove all its biggest critics wrong
This is a very useful technique for making event driven parsers. I remember being surprised that the case statements didn't all have to be in the same scoping level, but it's true.
Audio Hostings – free audio hosting sites
That's a confusing assertion. Wayland is only a few years old, and has only very recently seen anything approaching widespread usage. What do you mean by "Wayland is old"?

And, who's "we" when you say "We're planning to get all the major toolkits migrated to DisplayWebKit"?

I'm not trying to be argumentative, I just don't get where you're coming from.
Sourcery seeks Sr Rails Engineers to improve food supply
" you're risking the $60 it costs to buy a Kindle."

That's not all that much more than a single (non-mass market) book nowadays. Most technical books are in the $30+ range. Textbooks can cost hundreds.
Seems like a perfect match for Kickstarter, no?
Yeah I can make a cotton gin and a horse drawn carriage in 2015 . When something is created has no fixed or forced relationship to the effective age of the underlying technology.
You've probably been living under a rock or something. Just because you hate JS doesn't mean you should deprive everyone from it.

It's like having a smartphone without apps.

It's like having electricity but without appliances.

It's like having a DVD player without the DVD.

It's like saying "Hey Google, I don't like JS. Can you please not ship Chrome with it?"
Funny that he is more famous for this than for inventing Porter-Duff compositing algebra, one of the cornerstones of modern image manipulation.
The ranger file manager, which I use can do image previews in urxvt and claims to also work with iTerm, st and xterm.
If anyone's curious to try this, here's how to get it working: https://github.com/shockone/black-screen/issues/21#issuecomm...

Overall, actually really like the interface and the potential behind it. Super laggy and could use some work.
I just used it a few minutes ago: https://github.com/nraynaud/webgcode/blob/gh-pages/interpola...

https://github.com/nraynaud/webgcode/blob/gh-pages/interpola...

One problem is the reset of the functions, I just created a makeshift exception, but I don't know how far I want to deviate form the norm.

I still don't know if it's a good idea, but that's what personal projects are for.
Some of that can be attributed to the fact that there are multiple integer and floating point units, so the loop counter is often totally inconsequential.
I'd say that Lefkowitz's claims are mostly relevant when your runtime has no multicore support (like Python). If your runtime is single-threaded, explicit yields might (it's mostly a matter of taste), make explicit reasoning about state-change ordering easier. But then you're using shared-state concurrency again, and unsafe shared-state to boot. If your runtime has multicore support -- like Java or .NET -- all this doesn't matter, because those concurrent changes Lefkowitz is talking about may happen any time -- not just at yield points.

The solution, of course, is not to use unsafe-shared-state-concurrency! Either use threads with messages (like Erlang), or threads with transactional shared-state, like Clojure, or both (in fact even Erlang has both actors and ETS, and Clojure has agents and channels as well as atoms and refs).
While this looks stellar and having a serializable format is cool too, I am personally not a fan of gigantic configuration files as this.

Being declarative is much better than being imperative and configuration files seem like a natural fit for a declarative system, but they lack expressiveness. They are hard to make generic and lend themselves to repetition and fragility (in my experience).

I'd say that composition wins over configuration. If you provide a domain specific language with a set of useful primitives, users can leverage it to describe what they want with more flexibility and freedom.

For concrete examples within js-land, look at gulp.js[1], connect[2]-style middleware, and JSX[3]. All of them describe their structure with code, in a composable, pluggable, reusable fashion.

That being said, with a robust enough representation like Vega's, I bet you could write code that dynamically builds the final JSON structure.

[1]: http://gulpjs.com/

[2]: https://github.com/senchalabs/connect.

[3]: https://facebook.github.io/jsx/
When did those ideas become widespread?

I honestly don't know. I'd always assumed that all of that happened well before I was born, but never bothered looking for any exact dates. It's just something I've always been exposed to, and have always taken the importance of falsification as a given.

A quick search turns up this[1] from Wikipedia:

"In work beginning in the 1930s, Popper gave falsifiability a renewed emphasis as a criterion of empirical statements in science."

OTOH, the entry on Popper at Plato[2] says this:

"However, in the 1970's a series of papers published by researchers such as Miller, Tichý, and Grünbaum in particular revealed fundamental defects in Popper's formal definitions of verisimilitude."

which suggest that his work had achieved enough signficance by the 1970's that other people were basing work on it (and in this case, perhaps refuting bits of it).

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

[2]: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/
I think GP's post was tongue-in-cheek; I read it that way, anyway.
How would one go about designing a "how to learn mooc"? I'm serious.

If you think about it, a lot of why employers require college degrees is that it vets many life skills around being organized and having it together enough to earn a degree. Factor that out and you have MOOCs for the knowledge * the life skills. So the life skills themselves (such as meeting deadlines, working in groups, showing up on time regularly, learning how to learn, etc.) would have to become some hybrid of MOOC for study habits and a long-running college-experience LARP for the social interaction.
But Perl is unityped so I don't think it'd be useful there. :V
A Threat Analysis of RFID Passports (2009)
Dialogue Group | Melbourne Australia | REMOTE OK

Web design / UX front-end Designer and NodeJS / MEAN engineer

We build products that solve wicked problems – simple solutions to complex issues.

We're looking to grow our small team by adding a full-time front-end engineer (experience with things like Angular, React etc a massive plus, but we also need someone with a core design nous – you should be confident prototyping in HTML and CSS). Some general experience doing traditional 'graphic design' is also useful for the occasional thing that needs to be put together (like a logo for an MVP).

We're also on the lookout for an awesome Node dev – some of our products are (relatively) boring CRUD-type applications (MEAN stack mostly) but we have some more interesting bits and pieces too in the realtime space (think slack meets trello), analytics (how do you build small questionnaires to produce meaningful ongoing measurement of employee satisfaction?) and trying to fix one of the web's biggest problems: PDF forms.

We're a little team and there are still a lot of things we need to work on internally, like formalising the ways that we work and roadmap products (an ongoing struggle), and I'd love to hear your thoughts on your approach.

I'm (CEO/MD) based out of Melbourne but our team is global (India, Philippines, Dominican Republic, Australia). A bit of overlap with our timezone (+10 GMT) is necessary, but you don't have to work 9-5 local – that's crazy.

Get in touch through email, addresses below. Individuals please, I prefer to work with people directly, not businesses/recruiters etc.

hugh + design @ dialoguegroup dot com dot au – design position

hugh + node @ dialoguegroup dot com dot au – Node position
Author here. I'm not trying to claim that nested scoped continuations (what the literature calls "delimited continuations with multiple prompts") are objectively easy, although I do think they're a lot easier than monad transformers, especially for imperative programmers. In fact, in the post I say that I'm not sure languages should expose this abstraction directly.

It is merely discussed here to show that the theory behind the imperative style is not different from the one behind the PFP style, aimed for those who believe "PFP is just math, while imperative is 'not math'", or to those who are curious to see (as I was) if the imperative style has something like PFP's monad, namely an elegant abstraction that's at the heart of everything.

In practice, however, most continuations should be used sparingly if at all, except one -- the thread (in particular, the lightweight thread). Lightweight threads make the most annoying problems of monads in an imperative language go away, and are easy for imperative programmers to use.
A(n) Whole New World (2012) [video]
"That prospect differs from a "job guarantee" precisely where that stuff is not sufficiently useful. In the margin there, I object to paying people to take time and effort away from places they may find more value, to do things that are of minimal value, in the name of "dignity." In fact, I think paying for useless work is destructive of precisely that dignity (along with a pile of economic value)."

So you are saying, in essence, that people's art projects, poetry and one person startups and time spent watching daytime TV are, on average, more useful than projects like the lincoln tunnel, schools, hospitals and bridges and you object to resources being taken from one to build the other?
"Kafka on the shore" by Haruki Murakami.
Not sure why you want to so quickly discount data science, dev ops, etc. But you could also consider many research areas in computer science that use light scripting to prove out new algorithms and techniques. Another area is computer security/pen testing.
Jeffery Heer gave a great talk at OpenVisConf earlier this year on the whole vega ecosysthem

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdoDLuPe-Wg
"grammer"? You couldn't even copy/paste the title of the project?
I went about looking for at least a draft level spec. All I could find was: https://uwdata.github.io/vega-lite/spec.json

I love the concept, but since this is presented as a "grammar", it would make sense to provide a specification of it, in addition to the examples.

Great work!
Girl, 12, beats Einstein and Stephen Hawking to get top score in IQ test
$10-$50/mo/patient for unlimited home/work/office/technology visits, no copays, all office procedures are included free of charge and wholesale prices on meds/labs/imaging/pathology for up to 95% savings. And can decrease employer premiums by 30-60%
Odd that nobody mentioned RabbitMQ as an alternative. Why is that?
Yeah, really bad....b4, we had a choice of when we would upgrade, if it's worth it, was there enough innvovation, etc. now, 'you' are forced to keep paying for upgrades, even if you don't need them right away, or want to just skip one. Sucks really bad...As a longtime user 10+years, I'm out...ransom does not play well with me.
thanks, https://www.max.md/ has been in busy for years - i think i've add the domain for >6
As I read this article, I kept thinking, "This seems like the output of a postmodernist essay generator." Rarely have I read something containing so little information while using so many long, overly-complicated sentences with big, nebulously-defined words.

Philosophy is not my specialty, but I've studied a decent amount of it. I've read Anselm, Aquinas, Kant, Descartes, Voltaire, Paine, Hume, Bentham, and others. All of them were more understandable and coherent than this essay. Seriously, can anyone make sense of this:

> Wittenberg’s is thus a theory of autonomisation (or, as Niklas Luhmann termed it, differentiation), and of its internalisation of what mandarin scholars used to call extrinsic factors (social issues, content of various kinds, the non-literary or extra-poetic).

It's as if the writer was trying to be incomprehensible.
It's not actually that terrible, but then again it depends on what you're building I suppose.

Where I work, I made a fairly robust image diffing utility that runs using Selenium/WebDriver on all browsers that we support. Combined with a robust test suite of many different scenarios, we can make changes to our stylesheets with a pretty high amount of confidence that if anything changed, it'll fail the build.
I'm sorry, I seem to be missing your point.

[configuration files] lack expressiveness.
They are hard to make generic and lend themselves
to repetition and fragility

That's exactly what I would say about an imperative scheme, also from experience.

I'd say that composition wins over configuration

That too, makes not sense to me.
Байкал+-+Фоты+моего+двора+҉+Текущее+время:+06+сен+2015+10:53+