skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I view current cryonics as a bit like playing the lottery. If you don't play, you will not win. If you do play, you have a minuscule but nonzero chance of winning.

Over 30 years ago, I joined others to sit with a friend while he died way too young. He had arranged for cryonic preservation. AFAIK, he's still chilling. And he has a minuscule but nonzero chance of someday resuming his prematurely interrupted life.

While that seems to me extremely unlikely to happen, I wonder if it felt just as unlikely to somebody in the 3rd century that people would someday fly through the air...or talk to a friend who was beyond shouting distance...or live to 90 years of age...etc. We've sequenced DNA from dinosaurs, and 30 years ago I would have bet strongly against that.

I've learned to avoid underrating the power of exponential increments in knowledge and capability.
PCRE is a set of extensions to RE to enable parsing of nonregular grammars. This is just RE. It's like calling some hypothetical language C++--. It doesn't make sense.
1. Gold had value 4000 years ago because it was rare enough that people could use it as a currency, not because it was a useful metal. Incidentally, it's not useful at all compared to steel, copper, aluminum, etc. hence its use in jewelry.

2. Gold has value today because some people are willing to buy it and some others are willing to sell it. I don't see how it couldn't be the same with Bitcoins (or anything for that matters). Can you explain to me why dollars have value? Euros? Drachmas?

3. You repeating that two successful investors said something at some point doesn't mean they are right, and you saying that they "agree with you" doesn't mean you are right. When trying to find the truth, blindly referring to authority is the last thing you should do.
I suppose in 500 years it'll be possible to get a better brain.
Seems a long way from "the ultimate drone" to me.
Although this would be a major engineering feat, it could be done. It would stop global warming almost immediately. What it won't do is reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere, so ocean acidification and the resulting dieoff of aquatic life would still happen. Perhaps even worse, it would enable the continued "business as usual" burning of fossil fuels and likely cause CO2 levels to rise even higher than they would have otherwise.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability#Scalability_targets

> Today the Bitcoin network is restricted to a sustained rate of 7 tps due to the bitcoin protocol restricting block sizes to 1MB.

I've heard the number from other sources as being 6 or 7 before too, particularly after the scale tests I believe.

I know there's the blocksize increase debate which will make this comment inaccurate soon.

Also, I believe that a 0 fee transaction will still get processed eventually and, since such a thing is valid, it's not going to stop spam entirely, just slow it a lot.
The predictions of pilot wave theory are the same as any other interpretation of quantum mechanics, and the theory isn't new it's been around 80 years
Sure. This is an extreme example. I'm just starting my third of university software engineering and I've been dreaming up a moderately ambitious (but technically straightforward) CRUD web app since early in my first year. Since then I've flipped and switched between countless frameworks and languages, shelved, reassessed, unshelved, reshelved, and scrapped many basic prototypes. Only recently I've made some progress towards a prototype I'm happy with, but most of the motivation for that came from a recent successful launch of a service spookily similar to my concepts.

Not sure how relevant it is, but I've also had to retake multiple theory courses in my time at school so far. Calculus, linear algebra, discreet structures.

In terms of seeking professional help, I'm seeking some myself this week, though admittedly for social and general anxiety (related or not to my productivity, I'm not sure).
Array accesses are checked at runtime.
LTCM did make an important lesson that you imply, and existed before, but often wasn't adhered to: When you get to a certain size, close to new money.
How can a language whose compiler is written in C ever be faster than C?
to be honest, from a histology, pathology point of view, it's pretty doubtful anyone frozen today would be restored to anywhere near working consciousness, no matter how many rat brain glycerol SEM slice pictures the company trots out. The second law of thermodynamics is pretty rough on neural tissue.
I wanted to build something similar, will definitely give it a try! Are you actually thinking of monetising/keep working on it?
"The time seems to be lost mostly to choosing between options (such as libraries to use), in deciding how to integrate those libraries into my source code, and in solving random hiccups. If the library just doesn't work for no apparent reason (like I always get a login failed message with no clear exception) there goes another three hours of debugging something that would have been an intuitive 10 second fix to a faster developer."

That sounds pretty normal: working with new code is always harder and slower than working with code that you know well. It sounds like you're constantly climbing that learning curve by using new libraries. What if for your next project, you just decided in advance to use the same libraries or frameworks that you used in your previous project? Then you'd have already worked out all the bugs and API oddities and can immediately start working on implementing the actual project.
IEX is an interesting option created by some pretty morally outraged characters.
Perl's regex engine is uses a non-deterministic finite automata [NFA]. Because the Readme indicates each character is only examined once and that PIRE lacks backtracking, look ahead and capture groups, it's engine is almost certainly DFA [deterministic finite automata] based. Thus among the syntax it is likely to choke on or ignore are anything involving curly braces {}.

Keep in mind that "regular expressions" can denote a notation for describing finite automata and that this is subtly different from the programming language implementation of regex engines in languages like Perl.
This article is bizarre: "The greatest programming minds are capable of using software to multiply massive integers that are bigger than the universe." What does this even mean?
Honestly, 2010 is now quite a long time ago in cancer research. I would not read any article from then and hope to understand the current state of knowledge. Not that it isn't interesting, but it's almost more from a historical perspective at this point.
You may be chronically sleep deprived and not realize it. If that's the case you should try sleeping really consistently for a week and check the difference. Don't use an alarm, just be really disciplined about going to sleep early enough to wake up naturally. No caffeine or other stimulants.

The difference between a well rested brain and a sleep deprived one is night and day.
Not currently an OCaml user, but it's definitely general-purpose.

I don't think OCaml fits into a specific broad niche, although one of the areas where it sees more use is in computer language development/research. A whole bunch of compilers are implemented in OCaml (Hack and Flow by Facebook, for example), and then there are tools like Coq, and some static analysis tools (Flow is one, I guess) are also in OCaml.

What I think you'll find is that the standard library is quite lacking, as is the availability of third-party libraries. The ecosystem is nowhere close to what it is for languages like Node.js, Ruby — or even Haskell.
Heh. What I read there is "Even more widespread doping is sports will lead to a cure for cancer". Sounds like a reason to encourage doping rather than trying to stamp it out.
There's nothing wrong with it. Its implementation however is optimized for some use cases and not others. It appears that the folks at Yandex did not feel that crawling the web at their scale was one among the tasks for which it was suited.
>So, it's not terribly profitable to go after say "cancer X with mutations P, D, and Q". This really needs government funding.

This is one of the key problems. The effective size of most true cancers types is so small that pharmaceutical companies can’t make a profit developing a drug that targets these cancers. Imagine you identify a new drug that 100% cures people with a cancer that has three specific mutations. Now lets assume that out of the millions of people who get cancer each year only 500 have this particular combinations of mutations. This drug will cost the same as any other drug to develop (lets assume $1 billion), but you can only sell it to 500 people per year. Even if you set the price at $100,000 per person you don’t come close to earning enough money to pay back the development costs. Add in the fact that very few drugs make it through the whole development process you can see why we have a problem.
No need to be that pessimistic.
See, I'm out in the industry now but back when I was studying I could have written almost exactly the same thing. I wish you all the best.
I suspect the damage to be so extensive that the hypothetical advanced technology might find it a lot easier to just scan the brain, then copy the patterns into a computer. You'll be 'revived' inside a computer.

Especially since the tech to do that will probably come long before the tech to recreate your adult body.
They will still make money the same way, heck they'll make much more money than before because operational costs and inherit risks will be much lower.
Today it costs banks to transfer money for multiple reasons the blockchain can remove some of those reasons but it will never be accessible to you as a consumer.

The blockchain can integrate allot of the stuff that for example SWIFT is currently used for but combine it with services that correspondent banking and clearinghouses provide to facilitate the actual transaction.
This means that if a bank A wants to move money to bank B it will be much easier and safer (from a risk perspective) but it doesn't mean you'll enjoy those benefits just like you can't install a SWIFT gateway at home.
You downvoters have my blessing to go use it. Not me!
The author covers cabal sandbox, which I used until recently when I converted my few Haskell projects to use stack. I was really happy with stack until a few days ago when I tried to add some old Haskell code to a new yesod web app. Dependency hell that took a while to sort out.

This article discussed getting everything working and then doing a cabal freeze which is something I hadn't seen before. I would like to be able to simply update a project to new library versions but maybe I should drop that desire. Any advice?
to fully un-Google is not easy, but sites like http://www.keyamp.com/ can help you watch Youtube videos... these iptables rules can help you block Google (there is probably more efficient ways to write those rules too)...

#!/bin/sh

# /etc/init.d/firewall

IPT="/sbin/iptables"

IPT6="/sbin/ip6tables"

# Block Google

$IPT -A INPUT -s 64.18.0.0/20 -j DROP

$IPT -A INPUT -s 64.233.160.0/19 -j DROP

$IPT -A INPUT -s 64.102.0.0/20 -j DROP

$IPT -A INPUT -s 66.249.80.0/20 -j DROP

$IPT -A INPUT -s 72.14.192.0/18 -j DROP

$IPT -A INPUT -s 74.125.0.0/16 -j DROP

$IPT -A INPUT -s 108.177.8.0/21 -j DROP

$IPT -A INPUT -s 173.194.0.0/16 -j DROP

$IPT -A INPUT -s 207.126.144.0/20 -j DROP

$IPT -A INPUT -s 209.85.128.0/17 -j DROP

$IPT -A INPUT -s 216.58.192.0/19 -j DROP

$IPT -A INPUT -s 216.239.32.0/19 -j DROP

$IPT -A OUTPUT -d 64.18.0.0/20 -j DROP

$IPT -A OUTPUT -d 64.233.160.0/19 -j DROP

$IPT -A OUTPUT -d 64.102.0.0/20 -j DROP

$IPT -A OUTPUT -d 66.249.80.0/20 -j DROP

$IPT -A OUTPUT -d 72.14.192.0/18 -j DROP

$IPT -A OUTPUT -d 74.125.0.0/16 -j DROP

$IPT -A OUTPUT -d 108.177.8.0/21 -j DROP

$IPT -A OUTPUT -d 173.194.0.0/16 -j DROP

$IPT -A OUTPUT -d 207.126.144.0/20 -j DROP

$IPT -A OUTPUT -d 209.85.128.0/17 -j DROP

$IPT -A OUTPUT -d 216.58.192.0/19 -j DROP

$IPT -A OUTPUT -d 216.239.32.0/19 -j DROP

$IPT6 -A INPUT -s 2001:4860:4000::/36 -j DROP

$IPT6 -A INPUT -s 2404:6800:4000::/36 -j DROP

$IPT6 -A INPUT -s 2607:f8b0:4000::/36 -j DROP

$IPT6 -A INPUT -s 2800:3f0:4000::/36 -j DROP

$IPT6 -A INPUT -s 2a00:1450:4000::/36 -j DROP

$IPT6 -A INPUT -s 2c0f:fb50:4000::/36 -j DROP

$IPT6 -A OUTPUT -s 2001:4860:4000::/36 -j DROP

$IPT6 -A OUTPUT -s 2404:6800:4000::/36 -j DROP

$IPT6 -A OUTPUT -s 2607:f8b0:4000::/36 -j DROP

$IPT6 -A OUTPUT -s 2800:3f0:4000::/36 -j DROP

$IPT6 -A OUTPUT -s 2a00:1450:4000::/36 -j DROP

$IPT6 -A OUTPUT -s 2c0f:fb50:4000::/36 -j DROP
It seems to be the shared assumption of the Internet age that somewhere out there is a powerful "them" controlling everything. All the worlds problems are due to "them" acting in their own interests, and everything would be fine if only "we" could put ourselves in charge instead.
Makes me wonder why, if dolphins are so smart, they aren't figuring out a way to decipher our language and communicate with us monkeys.
It's a lot less difficult when you're allowing for the fact that politics will be political: that it is about finding compromises and combinations, and sometimes just about the contest, between competing worldviews, interests, and values.
The djb way (2007)
I didn't track the style of Neovim changes, but I appreciate them actually making a moving project. vim has bugs and feature requests which aren't fixed for years.

I'm using Neovim currently and really enjoy that it supports stuff like 24 bit color schemes in the terminal. I finally can use color schemes which don't hurt my eyes.
Looks like the rules for building and installing third-party kernel extensions changed for OS X 10.9 (Mavericks) and later. Details at http://asciiwwdc.com/2013/sessions/707. Sorry for any confusion.
My point is no one can know what your issue is. It takes tests, experience and knowledge of medical professionals to find out what your issue is. If you are open about your symptoms, your feelings and your concerns a good doctor will order tests. They might show something or they might show nothing. The doctor might consider it to be psychological instead of physical so you might be referred to a therapist.

Diagnosing humans is pretty damn hard and will take time. Stick with finding a solution.
If you want to preserve your genes, then much more reliable way to do that is to have kids.

If you want to preserve your ideas, then writing books, articles and public comments on Internet is the way to go.

The chance of successful recovery of frozen dead brain after 100 years is very close to zero (assuming that the recovery process was never tested). Kim Suozzi's “1 or 2 percent chance” is extremely optimistic forecast.
> Asked if he's tried to rent a second lot for his empty cabs, Kodogiannis said he hasn't been able to find one within walking distance.

If only there were some technology by which he could travel
a greater distance quickly - perhaps something with wheels,
or a conveyance of some kind that could meet him at a more
remote lot, and carry him back to the dispatcher's office.

Sarcasm aside, here is a business dependent upon the common good of
free curb-side parking, and saying, in effect, that they do not use the transportation method they provide to others to meet their own needs.
Calling it a public database is misleading, it's not really public even the Bitcoin blockchain ins't really public as it's access isn't free (proof of work).

The blockchain that will be used by banks won't be public just like SWIFTNet and other similar banking networks aren't public. What WS and the banks want is a private blockchain to replace the current messaging and clearance systems and services into something which will be cheaper, faster and will have lower intrinsic risk.

Banks, clearinghouses and other similar financial institutions will have access to it and will provide the needed infrastructure to support it, it will allow them to conduct their financial operations at a much lower costs increasing their profit margins it's not meant for you to be accessing it from your mobile phone everytime you use apple pay.
Things don't have value on their own. They have value to someone in some context. Your Apple has value to a hungry person because it can be eaten, it has value to an apple producer, or merchant, because it can be sold, and it has value to a truck driver because it needs transporting.
It's not an intrinsic property of the apple. It is entirely a result of the plans and hopes of those individuals who deals with the apple.

You can of course counter that all value is derived from the hunger of the apple eater, why else would the driver, merchant and producer bother?

And that's where something like Bitcoin could enter the picture. It establish value in the other direction. It has value to the apple eater because it can be used to buy an apple, to the truck driver because it buys fuel, to the merchant because it buys more apples, and to the producer because it buys a well earned vacation trip.

The intrinsic properties of being of a fixed supply, securely transferable, highly divisible and cheap to store and move around makes it useful as an intermediate token of value exchanged.

That said, I do think the high volatility of Bitcoin takes away much of is usefulness as a currency. In this regard it's to much like gold. A future replacement should probably have an elastic supply like the credit based currencies we are used to dealing with.
There are times when Go (et al) style multiple return values would better serve a function than exceptions.

For example, a function to parse a string into a number should return both a number-reference, and a flag of some kind (or maybe just an Option). Crap input should not generate an exception like out-of-memory or an I/O error. Trying to dereference the number w/out checking to see if the string was parseable COULD generate a not-mandatory-to-check exception, though.

I guess there is a certain amount of tension between the idea that functions/methods should document the kind of errors/exceptions they might have, and between the annoyance that is all the crappy do-nothing catch clauses that turn around and re-vomit wrapper exceptions that ultimately land in a "well, it didn't work" log message and punt, rather than really "handling" the original exception in any way, shape or form.
I work 14 hours, workout for 2 hours, and sleep 6 hours a day, 7 days a week. This is my company and I'm bringing it into existence. Not to mention that LOC count includes testing which I write in standard TDD fashion. Furthermore, a number of prototypes were built in Ruby prior to working with Go. And the design for the core set of services was thoroughly planned and documented.

While I may be a total beginner in Go, I am absolutely not a junior software engineer. Go lends itself to being learned quickly.

No. It's not based on a single, one-month, one-man project. It's based upon a series of pain points I've felt over the years working in a number of different languages, on a number of different projects, with a number of different teams. Go solved enough of them to be worthwhile.

Your simile is flawed. It's like deciding to use one hammer to hammer all nails from now on until it breaks. I'm optimizing for aggregate throughput of a mid-sized team working on the problems we have over the course of 3 years. Go fits the bill for all the reasons I discussed above.

If you want to offer up a more detailed point-of-view, please do. That'd be much more appreciated than such a vapid, dismissive piece of criticism.
Who Invests in Hardware Startups?
Well, that's a problem of those who replaced that code without handling that change properly, not of strlcpy per se.
OK, but where do I start?

PS I may be dense today.
Structured data (with Schema.org and OpenGraph) is being used by AppleBot and Spotlight. Since mobile search on iOS is 75% Spotlight (and 25% everything else - including Google) you're well advised to implement it.
In one word, the reason is incentives. I felt compelled to write details down on quora..
so i'm confused...what is the robot doing to 'capture brush strokes'? I guess i was expecting some logic, math, or algorithm to kind of explain the process but i didn't see anything. Is it doing anything more than just running the recorded x-y coordinate route?
This answer[0] explains various parts of RWH which is outdated.

[0] http://stackoverflow.com/a/23733494/1651941
The Threat Coming by Land
"The Dwarves delved too greedily and too deep. You know what they awoke in the darkness of Khazad-dum... shadow and flame."
Pythonic interfaces in Go: Generators
I actually worked at a place a guy did use SQL to build pages. He had very very long select statements with phrases like "SELECT '<td>' + u.user_id + </td>' FROM users u" and actually returned whole web pages from his selects. Then he fed this into some sort of ASP/Perl abomination he had cooked up for display. Later he got clever and decided just to store the html with embedded data directly in the database. Worked OK for him until he needed to actual data and not the html. Then it was mile-long Perl regular expressions to the rescue! Needless to say it was a horrible buggy mess.

I didn't stay at that place very long.
I think lottery is a good analogy here.

1) Extremely low chances to win (if at all).

2) The change that the winner is going to regret being revived is quite high (dysfunctional body, totally new environment, being a subject of historians' research).
If you're interested in regular expressions and their place in automata, Jeff Ullman's Automata course starts today on Coursera: https://www.coursera.org/course/automata

The recent HN discussion of its announcement is here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10089092

Ullman is also coauthor of "The Dragon Book".
Most likely out of necessity due to the cold war than anything else.
When you couldn't import software or hardware really from the west (not that the government would want too) you had to reverse engineer pretty much everything and make it on your own.
North Korea used to be quite good in reverse engineering also, now all they do is pretty much hack it the easy way by reskining OSS.

Availability was always a big driving force behind many RE efforts, allot of the good reverse engineering examples from the west (EU/US) that you can see especially in the 80's/90's were all about reversing Japanese games and game consoles (including arcade machines), some of them took 10-20 years to break especially those with the more advanced CAPCOM DRM modules.
Would add stackage[0] as first item if it was my list.

[0]https://www.stackage.org/
Public health folks think about this a lot. More pressing is things like expanding ranges for major vectors like diseases.
What if your brain would unfrozen straight into "hell"?

The researchers from the future may put your brain into very painful condition in order to keep it functional.

Would cryonic worth it?
We could generously assume some words are missing and it means "numbers larger than the number of particles in the universe".

But there's only 10^80 particles in the universe, so that's not very impressive. You could do it, rather tediously, with a pen and paper.
Exactly. The current theory, I believe, is that humans didn't "exterminate" Neanderthals, we just out bred them. This might be due to differences in "character". I can't reproduce the argument here, and I don't have a link, so I'm being a bit vague but the point is, something in the Human mental make up caused us to form more successful communities than the Neanderthals. The several Hominins running around Europe in the past seem to have coexisted for some time, and interacted enough that some interbreeding took place. Over time, Neanderthal faded away, leaving only the bits of DNA we got from them.
Cancer patient gets a 3D-printed titanium rib cage
> 10 years ahead of the competition, easily

This is, bluntly, crap. I don't know if it's crap drawn from marketing or not, but crap it is. Oracle is not "10 years ahead" of DB2 or SQL Server.