skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
consider the example

@decorator_without_args
def function():
pass

this is equivalent to

function = decorator_without_args(function)

now consider the other case, where the decorator takes in some args:

@dec_with_args("hello", "world")
def func():
pass

this is equivalent to

function = decorator_with_args("hello", "world")(function)

Or in other words, the expression after @ needs to evaluate to a Callable which is then called on the function you are decorating, so with @a_decorator, you call a_decorator on your function. When you use @with_args(1, 2, 3), you are calling the function "with_args" and then the result of that function is your decorator. So an example of this working is like so:

debug_list = []
other_list = []
def dynamic_debug_decorator(output_list=debug_list):
# dynamic debug decorator should return a decorator function
# realistically, ddd is a decorator factory, not a decorator
def debug_decorator(function):
# so this is our real decorator
def decorated_function(*args, **kwargs):
# and this is the new function we return
output_list.append(function) # because silly example
return function(*args, **kwargs)
return decorated_function
return debug_decorator

so now using that decorator:

@dynamic_debug_decorator
def function():
pass

this fails, because dynamic debug decorator takes a list, but is now receiving a function. Instead we need to call it like so:

@dynamic_debug_decorator
def function():
pass

this works, using the default values.
Getting started with Twisted
How WildTangent Is Shaking Up the Android CPI Market
Would you mind explaining what is it missing? I work at Blackboard and would love to get honest feedback :)
From what I got out of it, they were talking about smaller timescales, on the order of a couple centuries. The 1400 years was a sort of upper limit (our planet consumes as much energy as the sun, hotter than the sun). 400 years was where the atmosphere reaches the boiling point. Those of course are the steady 2%-3% increase numbers though, and assume there's actually enough energy to reach those states, which there probably isn't.
That's because blackboard is a lot like Oracle they have more lawyers than programmers.
Maybe we eventually get clever enough to print tablet functionality, including search, on a sheet of paper.
Who still watches TV shows?
Preferred seating and boarding, free checked baggage, potential upgrades, a multiplier on miles earned. (Although the minimum status level doesn't buy you a lot on most airlines these days.)
I hope the maths departments still cherish chalk boards. When I was teaching in 2007, I specifically requested a blackboard when all of my colleagues preferred whiteboards.
Too bad there's not a fuzzer for English.
Creepy Smartwatch Spies on What You Type on a Keyboard
Guys, there are errors in this code because I just typed it into a text buffer without ever compiling or running it. It is an example from a slide that I didn't care very much about, for illustration purposes only.

If you did that with the C++ code in this article there would be errors too. Major straw man.
Yes, your phone can do everything that this mirror can and more. Well, except work as a mirror.

The entire point of this is that this is a household object that you need anyway, but that it leaks information that might be useful to you. So you would skip the step of taking out your phone and checking xyz. Yes, you'll only save 30 seconds or so of your time. But that's every day and that's one step you don't have to remember to do.
For sufficiently broad (and meaningless) definitions of DoS.. sure, why not?

In general, however, in commerce, the term used is "sold out".
Unmasked: An Analysis of 10M Passwords
I was diamond on Delta, and now have lost it. The little perks really adds up, and make travel significantly more comfortable.

One example off the top of my head: when I had status, if I had an issue, I could call a phone number and a representative would answer after a single ring. Shortly after I lost my status, a snowstorm complicated some of my travel... I was on hold for a few hours in the general queue.

Free bags, priority boarding, lounge access on layovers, free upgrades... Each one of these things isn't a big deal, but when you're on a plane three or four times a month, it really helps you cope.
I view this as simple arbitrage. There's an opportunity to take and you take it first.... Lots of other comments somehow point to the fact that this is parasitic behaviour. Well, this is human behaviour.

Here's an even simpler credit card point arb:

http://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/mint-closes-loop...

The story in a nutshell: "On July 22, 2011, the U.S. Mint said it was ending credit and debit card sales of $1 coins because of "individuals purchasing $1 coins with credit cards, accumulating frequent flier miles, and then returning coins to local banks ... While not illegal, this activity was a clear abuse and misuse of the program."
As a rare exception, Delta will in fact let you earn bona-fide Medallion Qualifying Miles by using their fanciest credit card (no, not the Gold card, the $400/yr Delta Reserve card that also gets you into the lounges and counts as half-a-status-level for first-class upgrades)
I can assure you Mike, Once we stop extracting oil from the ground, EVERYONE will be returning to life a manual labor. The only reason why you aren't doing manual labor on your job right now is because of oil.
of course, being verbose, XML will be slower to fetch across the network as well
Facebook beware, a new kind of network is forming
This (the miles, etc.) is commercial air travel in 2015.

There were no nice things in the first place.
If you're willing to go to such lengths to get the miles, chances are first class is not a priority.
Name some of them then. I haven't read any content by black futurists (that I was aware of).
The problem with these 'who can consume the most' competitions to game the system is that there are 'external costs' placed on everyone else. Planes are noisy, they pollute and they crash.

In West London the annoyance begins at 4.30 a.m. and goes on until 11 at night, with another plane load of really important people arriving every two minutes. If we didn't have people going about on senseless travel all the time then the airport could be closed for long enough for people in West London to get some uninterrupted sleep. I don't think people gobbling up air miles care about these 'externalities'. I know they can't see past their own greed, but, what about noise, climate change and the fact that we do not have more than one planet's worth of hydrocarbons to waste?

Also, fun that it may have been in Madeira, Madeira used to be unspoilt. The place deserves better than some idiot hiring cars and driving them in circles all day. Again, noise, pollution and wastage. Despite the photos, I don't believe this is 'take only photos, leave only footprints', driving around madly for one day is not doing justice to what Madeira has to offer. It is quite an insulting attitude, typical for an American where community was swapped for this inane frequent flyer culture where nobody knows their neighbour or cares about things like the planet.

I do not actually fly any more, mainly because I have better things to do with my time (not because I think that I can save the planet by using my bicycle instead). In the work context I get more done from the one desk than those around me that have to do lots of flying for 'work'. I am also quite bemused at those that do travel for leisure - these days they come back and have nothing to say on their first day back, it is not like they are infused with mega-enthusiasm from the amazing things they saw and people they made acquaintance with. Did I not get the memo that you must not talk about your holiday?!?

Also odd with the mass-flying-disease is that the fuel in those planes is not taxed. Would these air miles schemes work if things were taxed properly? People that fly don't tend to care about that. You would think they would think about that whilst being waited on by effective slaves in parts of the world where human labour is not considered a valuable resource to be rewarded accordingly.
I'd upvote it.
don't talk to police

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
Blackboard is institutionally bad. The company is rotten to the core. It's pushed onto universities and schools through bribery, corruption, and deceit. I have seen this first-hand at two different places. The admins choose because it looks enterprisey and expensive. They figure they've spent the money, so the problem is solved. They also frequently get some very nice kickbacks for accepting to buy this piece of crap. It's buggy, hard to use, horrible to modify, expensive.

The most honest feedback I can get you is this: for your own moral rectitude, quit this job and find yourself a more ethical job.
Can you talk a bit more about jmap? It looks very sensible. How are your efforts going? Any uptake?
TomTom RoadDNA: Build your own self-driving car if you like
Ad Mocking Burning Man Corp. Influence Is So Accurate That Burning Man Might Sue
Funny you listed mostly desktop Windows applications, where C / C++ API were just the only choice in the times when these applications were born. All of the three (Java, C# and C++) are used in performance-critical applications these days, but you just need look at computing as a whole, and not just at a tiny part of the market (desktop).

Also, not sure why if someone points to the obvious places where C++ could be slow, people treat it personally as an attack on "their" language. The fact that many high-level abstractions are not-free in C++, doesn't preclude it from being still highly performing, particularly if you know the cost of these abstractions and you know when to avoid them.
The (expensive) solutions here typically involve IP over ATM, with forward error correction provided at the transport layer. This improves the reliability of your UDP stream considerably, since you don't have the option of application-level requests for retransmit.

Furthermore, you can implement a certifiably low-risk system for retransmits using a separate ultra-low-bandwidth uplink that can raise a NACK on data errors that FEC can't handle. This is sufficient for unidirectional TCP streams to be wrapped.

I mean, sure, you can fake it if you're not worried about someone connecting the wrong cable (potentially turning your system into a wonderful fountain of all the data you were trying to protect) and if you're willing to write custom application level protocols to handle significant amounts of data loss in transmission.
> All anyone would be able to do, is distribute free or paid copies of a historical cartoon film.

But perhaps you could also legitimately create derivative works? If you didn't offer them for sale, perhaps trademark would not apply (not used in commerce)? It would be interesting for them to demonstrate injury.
Perhaps more clearly, GDP doesn't distinguish between productive and unproductive activity.

The government could pay people to dig ditches and fill them back in, and that would contribute to the GDP even though it was a complete waste of effort and a net negative considering the opportunity costs.
I don't mean the fabrication of those components, I mean their operation.

In living organisms, eliminating randomness in their operation would change their intended behavior in several ways - randomness is a feature, not a bug, in living organisms.
23 bytes is a limit per one message and if you have a string that is longer than that - use "Read Long Value" - basically gets that string via a series of messages. No real bump if you meant that. Same time not sure that there are many existing products that send a lot of data via BLE
What I do when I get a new data set as told through tweets
United used to be my favourite airline for flying London to San Francisco, because while their economy seating were so-so, their perks as you racked up the miles were vastly better than e.g. British Airways or Virgin (far more frequent upgrades, for example, and a year of free premium economy upgrade after just a couple of roundtrips). Given that the price per seat was not very different, it was crazy how big the difference in perks was, and totally unsurprising that they've tightened up....
It sounds like you and the person you responded to are saying that there were self-driving cars in the year 2000? There really aren't even self-driving cars now, in 2015. Sure, there are prototypes (which are really cool), but there's a big leap between a prototype and the average person owning/hailing a self-driving car.

I think the shift to self-driving cars will be more of a social/cultural/political challenge than a technical one. I might even go so far as to predict it will never happen (at least, not for average people getting around town).
XML really is the mindkiller (and the bandwidth-killer). Let's compare & contrast XML, S-expressions and JSON for the two examples in the article:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<D:propfind xmlns:D="DAV:">
<D:prop>
<D:getcontenttype/>
<D:getetag/>
</D:prop>
</D:propfind>

becomes:

(propfind (prop getcontenttype getetag))

or:

{
"op": "propfind",
"prop": ["getcontenttype", "getetag"]
}

And:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<C:calendar-query xmlns:D="DAV:"
xmlns:C="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:caldav">
<D:prop>
<D:getcontenttype/>
<D:getetag/>
</D:prop>
<C:filter>
<C:comp-filter name="VCALENDAR">
<C:comp-filter name="VEVENT">
<C:time-range start="20150909T000000Z" end="20300909T000000Z"/>
</C:comp-filter>
</C:comp-filter>
</C:filter>
</C:calendar-query>

becomes:

(calendar-query
(prop getcontenttype getetag)
(filter (component "VCALENDAR")
(component "VEVENT" (time-range "2015-09-09T00:00:00Z" "2030-09-09T00:00:00Z"))))

or:

{
"op": "calendar-query",
"prop": ["getcontenttype", "getetag"],
"filter": [
{
"component": "VCALENDAR"
},
{
"component": "VEVENT",
"filter": {
"time-range": ["2015-09-09T00:00:00Z", "2030-09-09T00:00:00Z"]
}
}
]
}

I think it's pretty clear which is least readable and least concise.

So, what does XML buy one in exchange for its lack of concision? Well, a pre-processing tool which knows nothing about WebDAV or CalDAV could use a schema definition to sanity-check the formatting of a query. It could probably be set up to detect if one used an invalid date format; it may or may not be configurable to detect if one searched for a VCALENDAR component inside a VEVENT. Regardless, there are semantic constraints in a data model which cannot be expressed with, e.g., a DTD or XSD.

How about JSON? What does it buy? Well, it has built-in hash tables (as opposed to faking them with (table (key val) (key2 val2))), which is a huge win, and it has a ton of libraries in every language one can imagine.

How about S-expressions? I think that they win on clarity, readability and concision. But there are not a ton of parsing libraries available for every language (OTOH, a canonical-S-expression parser can be written in a few hours for any language).

So, who wins? I think that for most projects nowadays, JSON's clearly the answer. The pain of XML simply doesn't pay off in practice, while the elegance of S-expressions doesn't outweigh the unfamiliarity of the great mass of enterprise software developers.

But if you have a choice, use S-expressions.
The big eight brand colors – psychology behind colors
> So is this an effect of byers not having to use the product, or the fact that the checklist is huge and the software has to fit a ton of distinct use-cases that ultimately makes the software bad.

It's an artifact of the types of organizations which buy enterprise software and how well they [don't] handle communication and responsibility internally. Fundamentally, the results are rarely good when someone is buying software on behalf of someone else unless they have a deep understanding of how the other group works and where they spend the most time. One really common manifestation of this problem is when senior managers buy the software which gives them the reports which they want but doesn't consider how painful the process of entering the data is or whether the system design biases that data.

Enterprise software exacerbates that problem because the business model is a one-time decision to make a very expensive purchase. Since correcting a mistake is hard-to-impossible, that tends to lead to “requirements” which include everything anyone has ever thought they might need, which favors the really large vendors who can afford to check most of those boxes and promise that their expensive consultants can customize the software after the fact to get the remaining ones, which has a near-certainty of resulting in the problem mentioned where someone implemented just enough to say they satisfied a requirement but will never improve it before the next round unless you cough up more money and since it's customized per-customer there's limited ability to get improvements which someone else paid for.
That why we need an FAQ. So everyone who can't figure it out for themselves can read it.

I've already explained a couple of times that there are still advantages even if you can't read the original source. Can you figure out what one advantage might be?
30,000+ deaths annually in the U.S. alone is an awfully high price. Even marginal safety improvements would save many, many people. And that's not even counting the many more people who are mamed and left debilitated.

Then, there's the economics of car ownership. Cars are the second most expensive capital asset most people have after their house. They sit idle, depreciating, taking up valuable land 95% of the time on average. A self-driving car is very complementary to services like Uber. If self-driving cars could be shared, increasing vehicle utilization past 5%, then we could repurpose vast swaths of unproductive urban land.

Once fewer people are owning cars, and instead paying a la carte, it also restructures the choice architecture of driving. Without a default option sitting in the driveway, I suspect that people may opt to walk, bike, or take transit with more regularity as well.

As a planner, I'm slightly more bullish on the potential of self-driving cars to remake transportation than my peers are. It was only a couple of years ago that I attended a demand management conference keynote in which the well-known (in planning circles) speaker was cracking jokes about how self-driving cars wouldn't change anything. I disagree--I just hope the future gets here soon.
I've yet to see a board that actually is better. Different, yes, but not better.
The cops who shot this man have every reason to try to hide, but the the press and municipal government are not doing their job. The press, especially, is leaving most of this story completely unexamined.
Sometimes official justice turns out not to be real justice. Sometimes the whole institution is corrupt, sometimes it's corrupt this time, sometimes it just makes mistakes.

That's not an argument for or against vigilantism, just that justice is tricky.
No theory states that population growth can continue indefinitely. Growth is not only bounded by space availability, but energy as well.
Arbitrage is when you exploit inequalities in the system.
High frequency stock traders look for one millisecond inequalities between but-sell orders.
> That isn't "name calling". It's just naming.

When applied to a specific individual, it is name calling. As in this case.

> What he did is very precisely parasitical.

Nope:

> par·a·site; an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense.

Nothing precise about it. More like a slang insult for behaviour you disapprove of.

> If it's wrong for Avis to be an amoral, predatory agent that focuses only on what they get without regard to the costs, then it is equally bad for this person to do the same.

But when companies do it everyone ignores it, or screams "buyer beware." When an individual does it people start name calling, villifying, or using moralist arguments. It is a double standard. When Avis does it it is Avis' customer's fault, when a customer does it to Avis, it is still the customer's fault.

> In one way it's worse: he knows he's being exploitative, where a lot of large-organization negative externality is due to clueless systems, not conscious individual choice.

You're now literally playing the "Avis is amoral so it is ok" card. Why is it inherently wrong for individuals to act amoral towards an entity which also acts amoral?

> Approving of it because you don't like Avis and identify with this guy makes the problem worse.

For the record, I approve of it because Avis would do exactly the same thing in his place, and does to their customers all of the time. I think Avis should be treated the way they treat others. It isn't because I dislike Avis, it is because I like to see equal treatment, and if Avis is treating people badly then they too deserve to be treated just as well (or not).

If companies are flexible or show loyalty, I genuinely believe customers return that in kind. Look at Costco. This is not one of those companies.

> Because now you've helped normalize exploitation as a behavior, and people inside Avis will feel just as justified in their bad behavior because they can see themselves as responding to "those awful scamming customers".

Companies have already normalised the behaviour. So much so that we don't even talk about it anymore. In fact we teach kids that companies will try and exploit them if allowed, or take advantage of them, and then teach them a bunch of tricks to look out for when booking or buying (e.g. resort fees, baggage fees, location fees, un-included taxes, et al).

It is laughable to suggest that this guy treating Avis just once like Avis treats their customers daily and for many years, has somehow caused Avis to act this way. You're clearly applying one set of standards to companies and a completely different set to individuals (i.e. effectively companies are beyond repute in your mental model, but individuals deserve your disdain for being as bad as companies even if occasionally).
And both this and more-classical arbitrage is just someone enforcing the Law of One Price (by profiting from the price difference). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_one_price
Lawsuit for what? Hire an attorney to go after the miles and pay them and hope that he wins? Do you think a major corporation (who must handle simultaneously hundreds if not thousands of lawsuits over everything and anything) really cares? And almost certainly no class action (assuming in a country that allows class actions) how many people have this same issues? Public shaming? The opposite. Great free publicity better that it is made public and then they rectify it by giving him what he was denied in the first place. (And like you say to kids "all better now"). Do you honestly think an ordinary person will think the company should allow this type of thing and that this guy isn't obviously taking advantage of them? It's like someone taking all of the free plastic silverware at a restaurant most people recognize there is an implied limit. 37 rentals for this purpose kind of speaks for itself.
Thanks for hateback, but i choose to stay. Otherwise if all good people leave, who going to develop good software? (because blackboard will not die even with bad software per your post :))

I will fix it from inside.
Underground steam pipe hallways with rats, for one. For me, it was college.
If you travel frequently, priority check-in alone is worth it.
Quite a few hardware startups have gained a (sometimes large) portion of their series-A funding through Kickstarter or similar platforms.