skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Sorry, but again I have to disagree with you on every point. I may appear as an old grumpy programmer, but this kind of article exactly falls in what Zed Shaw calls "the expert", and I totally agree with him. (http://zedshaw.com/archive/the-master-the-expert-the-program...)

There are two 3 wrong premises in this article (IMHO):
- It makes you think that using raw pointers (so called 'low level types' in the article) is more error prone than using combined types.
- It makes you think that adding abstraction removes complexity.
- Makes you think that you should combine/factor everything because repeating yourself is forbidden.

These assertions are straight false.

- Adding abstraction does NOT remove complexity. It ADDS complexity, and then HIDES it. The ArrayView class has absolutely no use whatsoever. Every C/C++ programmer is used to access arrays through pointers. Creating a class for that just makes a reader wonder "what the hell is this thing?". And then you have to crawl in the code to understand what is this thing. And of course, in 3/5 years from now, this ArrayView class will have tripled in size. For something as simple as reading numbers in memory, i don't want any abstraction.

- There is nothing wrong in repeating yourself once on a while => if it improves readability! Factoring too much IS wrong. It makes reading the code a pain.
When I read code, I don't want to read an abstract version of what the code does. I want to grasp the maximum possible information with the minimum noise.
After reading the final version of this Mesh class, I have no idea of its memory layout. I see some ArrayView and a magical create_contiguous_memory function. I'm lost. I don't know where the memory come from, whether or not I own it, what will happen if I hand a pointer to it. Everything is hidden, and that's a pure pain to understand.
XSS via a spoofed React element
Let me construct a scenario:

I come across some well done (by some objective measure: good references, background checks), long form investigative piece. It seems interesting, so I read it, but then find that it clashes with some deeply held belief of mine. I decide at that point that I want my money back, because whatever it is I read made me uncomfortable, or I just didn't like it. What this ends up incentivizing is journalism that merely echoes the beliefs of your target demographic, dressed in beautiful language.

My problem is with the money back feature, not the entire idea of it. I think some other measure of engagement e.g. how much time one spends on an article, whether one keeps going back to a particular passage over and over, should be what determines if the publisher gets paid. Not whether the reader "likes" it.
yeah, I'm going to go with "he is making all of this up."

The only way I would have written a factual - as in, not blatantly made up - blog post like we just read (absent basically any mention whatsoever of personal danger) is if the whole thing really took place in Southeast China, oh, and in 1996, oh and it wasn't ATM machines it was vending machines - and it wasn't bluetooth it was FM radio. With literally every detail changed. Throw in a picture of a hotel in Mexico and you're good to go.

The alternative, that he is just making all of this up, seems just so much more plausible.

I've now also watched the video. I don't know - would bluetooth signals from deep inside a machine - as you can see, in the video, the bluetooth transmitter is occluded by an entire printed circuit board - go all the way across the lobby to reach him? (as in the video)

Secondly, since it is SO innocuous to take out a cell phone in front of an ATM (I would have zero qualms doing this) to check, wouldn't this post have generated literally hundreds of comments from people checking an ATM and finding said signal? Nobody would mind doing that.

(By the way, I don't have an issue with the "laziness" of the solution he purportedly uncovered, i.e. transmitting a bluetooth device signal with the default name, as it is not obvious how to make a transmitter turn on only in response to a signal from a commodity cell phone that has nothing incriminating on it. So technologically it seems to be okay for me.)

But the whole story doesn't really add up. Someone else here mentions that supposedly he regularly reads some spammer forum where they coordinated sending him cocaine in the mail and then SWATting his house. This just seems so incredibly unlikely to me - i.e. a fabrication. How many forums can one person read?

It just seems to be made up. (Unless he changed huge amounts of details to other, similar details). But that seems unlikely.
So what does the size or growth of an economy fundamentally measure, i.e. how do you quantify the size or growth of an economy without resorting to money at any point? This should help seeing things way clearer than thinking about how to grow an abstract amount of money.
Well, that's just plain wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment_in_Sweden
Deluge Torrent 1.3.12 Released, How to Install/Update in Ubuntu/Linux Mint
Isabelle as a solver in Leon
Far Superior Alternative to Google Alerts
Thank you. The numbers were a pleasant surprise.
This concern about economic growth in 1000+ years is entirely academic. The more relevant question is whether exponential growth (at whatever rate) is feasible for the next few decades and even centuries, and to me the answer to that question is yes, just using the examples from the article. So we can build appropriate policies for the present and near-ish future. Our descendants can decide for themselves at that point whether it's reasonable to continue economic growth, based on knowledge and science and experience they have gained.

I mean, how many physical theories can be argued to work into the infinite future? Does quantum mechanics or GR hold past the end of the universe? It's not even a meaningful question. Why hold economic models to the equivalent standard, when all that is needed is whether they hold in the relevant domain?

I feel that this question and argument is often used to try to draw the conclusion that we must stop trying for economic growth NOW, because infinite growth is impossible. Maybe it is impossible, but I don't think something happening or not happening at infinity or even in a thousand years has any bearing on what we should be doing now.
Agreed. The Hoffice idea is solid. It doesn't need airy fairy advice on how to work or relax.
It says it's just setjmp/longjmp, but later on expands on that, saying you can jump not only up the stack, but down and sideways too (#1).

I think the best explanation (mentioned in the article) is that you take a copy of the entire call stack, and can then reinstate it whenever you want to.

An even simpler explanation is Guy L. Steele's that it's "gotos with parameters", that is, basically goto, but let's you pass a parameter to the destination:

(define saved-continuation #f)

(display (string-append "hello "
(call/cc (lambda (here)
(set! saved-continuation here)
"world"))
"!\n"))
; Displays: "hello world!"

(saved-continuation "everyone")
; Displays "hello everyone!"

Running it with guile:

$ guile cc.scm
hello world!
hello everyone!

This code makes `saved-continuation` equivalent to

(lambda (param)
(display (string-append "hello " param "!\n"))))

Matt Might has an explanation, too: http://matt.might.net/articles/programming-with-continuation...

Finally, we have delimited continuations, which lets you basically slice off a portion of the current call stack, instead of taking it in its entirety. It's more powerful and lets one create true functions, and implement any other control flow construct.

#1: What's often not mentioned is the fact that you can only jump to code you've already run. So you can't jump straight into somewhere your program has not been, yet.
How does this work, in practice, for Cloudflare customers based outside of China?

Each customer still needs an ICP licence:
"CloudFlare customers that wish to serve traffic for their domains across the China network must possess a valid Internet Content Provider (ICP) license." [0]

ICP licences are only available to Chinese companies/individuals: "Please note that you must be a Chinese passport holder to be named the contact for a website. Foreign companies (unless they have a Chinese subsidiary) cannot apply for an ICP." [1]

[0] https://www.cloudflare.com/china

[1] https://support.cloudflare.com/hc/en-us/articles/209714777
Building Your Infrastructure with Terraform – Review and Walkthrough
"And the other side: there was a recent string of thefts of BMW and VW cars in my area. Reason? They had an inside man at the main office who slipped them copies of the remotes."

Why does this sound like Gone in 60 Seconds :)
Well, I'm confident you could find science that demonstrates positive physiological effects of prayer, too.

Sitting quietly and relaxing or focusing the mind is nice, which is why I do sitting meditation frequently. I just don't want to do it in an unrelated group setting, along with a dharma talk that I can almost guarantee ventures into some kind of metaphysical or spiritual territory.

Probably the "Hoffice" thing just isn't my cup of tea. The suggested break activities also include giving each other massages, doing "goofy" workouts, and some eye contact exercise that seems kind of creepy.
That's my point. The limits on our epistomological capacity are greater than advertised.

Sadly, this is not a trivial insight. The obstacles to clairvoyance privilege immediacy over wisdom, because it radically limits the number of possible permutations.

The solution to uncertainty is not an obsessive focus on one discrete risk, like anthropogenic climate change. Instead, it necessitates a focus on the factors that provide the most robust protection against a broad array of risks. Objectively, the single factor with the greatest relevance to the entire body of existential threats is economic growth or, at minimum, annual economic productive capacity, for it enables effective adaptive responses to myriad crises.
(Not disagreeing, just pursuing this thought)

There may be tax issues with hosting a Hoffice, even if you as a host don't charge anything.

If a UK tax inspector walks into your private home, does it look like a private home? Or does it look like a business? If it looks like a business, they'll investigate you.

"You mean to tell me, you don't know any of these people? And you simply let them use your facilities and wi-fi?"

If I was a tax inspector, I'd be all over you. It would reek of tax evasion and money laundering.

But why would the tax inspector even hear about it, right? Simple: your neighbours complain to the local council about all the cars parked on your front lawn. Then the council comes knocking on your door to ask if you've got permission to display that sign in your window.

You may come out of an investigation clean, but the process will be horrible. It would be good to thoroughly understand your position as a Hoffice host in advance.

I know people who run businesses from home that involve occasional visitors, and these are all legit concerns here in the UK. I also know people who've got away with it for years, taking cash-in-hand payments, and keeping the council and HMRC in the dark -- personally I haven't got the temperament for that sort of "excitement" in my life.
"startup" is well defined if you care to think about it - it's an entity looking to find a working business model.

once the model is established, whatever is the size of the entity and the turnover, it's no longer a startup, unless it pivots of course.

this definition rules out all stupid scenarios.
I apologize for not sticking it out until the end of the article, but it got really painful about a third of the way through.

I am tempted to save this and put it under a file titled something like "why scientists should not be economists" but I'm afraid it's a little too involved for that purpose.

I mean no disrespect to the author: these all seem like good and reasonable questions. To understand why this form of analysis does not work is to cut to the heart of what the difference between economics and hard empirical sciences. I will give a couple of examples, but I fear that folks who missed it the first time around will not get it this time.

First, note that no matter what period in human history this conversation occurred, it would follow the same pattern. "Here is a chart of the rate of fishing from the pond near our Roman village. Certainly catastrophe awaits us in just a few years", or one that actually occurred, "Population growth will stagnate and we will have famine when the 1900s come. Why? Because we will have ran out of grazing land for all the horses we will need"

Growth lines can't continue forever. Seems obvious. Yet somehow it always turns out the thing you were measuring wasn't the important thing all along. Sure, you can only fish so much -- but there are other ponds. Yep, can't have that many meadows -- yet meadows aren't a constraining factor.

The reason why such analysis fails is that science is always seeking a constrained and known system. Given controlled conditions, the falsifiability and reproducibility of science says that given these inputs, these outputs are likely to occur. Economics, because it deals with what people want, is under no such constraints. Let's say you give everyone on the planet all the food, shelter, and healthcare they need. End of money, right? Nope. People would trade Justin Bieber concert tickets, or autographs of Elvis Presley. People always want stuff they don't have, and they always like trading for it. That's economics.

If economic systems were the same as physical systems, wow, we'd have a lot of physicists who have made fortunes playing the stock market. We do not.
As the article is a bit short on details we can only grasp at what they exactly do different - maybe they're not doing anything unique, maybe he's just impressed with how they're using "known" methods to minimize risks/randomness.

I really can't tell from the text what kind of cells they use and how random these are, or how novel their method is (if it is even novel).
Personally I'm a bit more introvert and already in an open-floor-plan office about 100 minutes from home and sometimes look for a quiet room somewhere (think Airbnb but for work).

Have searched the net and while I found some they were significantly more expensive than Airbnb to the point where I could just as well rent a place on Airbnb just for a long days work.

I hope one day we can get a quiter version of this or an option in Airbnb to post and search for "quiet desks, no breakfast neeeded".
"Working" at your kitchen table in your pants, unshaved and unwashed, gets pretty thin for a lot of people.

The desk-rental business is huge.
I love reading these little blurbs about Plan9. I haven't played around with it too much but it feels very "modern" (I know it's old).

What are some of the ways a beginner can get into Plan9? Can I use it as a Desktop Operating System on my old Thinkpad? What can I do with it? Does it run a modern browser? Could it run QEMU?
I'm pretty sure that this wont work. Auto Negotiation will fail. Without getting link pulses from the other side, the MII / PHY will show as down.

More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonegotiation

You may be able to disable this feature, but it comes at great cost of losing link monitoring.

Without bi-directional replication, there's no way of stopping replication during failure, or inducing back pressure.

I'm inclined to think that this is a joke of some kind? I don't know.
Am I the only one troubled by the implicit racism within this article? :-/
Tool-Up Time: The Very Best Front-End Developer Tools in 2015
to me this reads as "i have little faith in 99% of the expert scientific community has to say.... but here's a batshit crazy theory which I think is a dead cert"
Sothink Blu-ray Copy
I suppose what I ought to have said is that very few programming languages can completely protect you from your own logic errors. It was not hard for Giles to discover the error in his code, but he still blamed the language for it.
A new awesome psychedelic clip
An example of where this might be useful is e.g. jRuby (Chris, one of the authors of this paper, and whose site this is linked to, worked on the Truffle backend for jRuby) - there are tons of Ruby gems out there with extensions written in C. I supposed this fits in the "legacy" category, of sorts, though for MRI this is not "legacy" but an artefact of the large number of C libraries people want to interface with coupled with performance considerations vs. MRI. In general the large number of Gems with C extensions is a bit of a pain point for alternative Ruby implementations.

I'd imagine there are quite a few other similar situations where you're running code on the JVM but it would be convenient to be able to pull in some C code without having to deal with JNI etc.
Oh, this is really cool, have you thought of packaging it for mobile with motion events? :D
i'm always wary of the tendency of economists to assume that no laws of nature apply to economies.
With each next article about React (and more generally javascript) it's more apparent that the final result is a mongo/rethink like db in the front-end with a transparent sync to the server
So by this logic, 4sq and Twitter are startups, and Github is not?
The DebugMe developer team put together a list of front-end developer tools which can be useful for every dev out there. Did they miss anything that should be on the list?
It is a known issue on FontAwesome and scheduled for the next release.

https://github.com/FortAwesome/Font-Awesome/issues/7357
Serial cables work nicely as well and is less expensive (for now : )

As others have mentioned TCP goes out the window immediately. Luckily for lots of applications sending updates work really well.
Star Wars: An Interactive Galactic Experience
Big Boss
Tencent’s WeChat App to Offer Personal Loans in Minutes
Show HN: Findie, curated discovery of the world's best cinematic videos
Big bucks and big audiences for drones
It seems to me that you simply don't like what C++ stands for, and that's perfectly OK; but then complaining that C++ follows C++ principles seems foolish to me. To quote the original article:

> should we be using these low level types in this particular class, or use classes that better represent what we need and leave the low level types to them?

There is no mention that we want to remove complexity. Instead, the aim of modern C++ is in fact to hide it, so that high level code can be written as simply as possible while hiding all the implementation details in classes. The code you see in this article is no different from the code you find in the implementation of the standard library; in fact since it is simpler it is even easier. Does not mean that the standard library does not have complexity - but it hides it from me, possibly with low expense. Also it never mentions pointers, the problem there is all the arithmetic which is not portable and highly prone to bugs should it ever need to be modified.

The article is not factoring. It is coalescing a feature in a simple, single purpose class which does very little, and has a very simple use case and usage. If you have no idea of the memory layout, then you need to read the class, exactly as you would if you wanted to know the memory layout of std::list or std::vector. Making a class does not prevent the complexity from existing, it just prevents you making silly mistakes while using it. It never allows you not to know your trade and forget how to program.

It seems to me you are a C guy. Really, I get what you are saying, it is just not the philosophy of C++, and if you disagree, maybe you shouldn't be using C++. That's perfectly fine, and I love that there are C people doing C things - it's not my cup of cake, but I'm happy they're there. And I would understand also if you were complaining about C++ trying to do something it is not. But what's happening here it really not the case, so I don't agree with you either.
Software Pricing Guide
From the comments:

> Apple controls iPhones. They have root access, you don't. It's the future that Richard Stallman predicted in The Right To Read, except he thought it would be Microsoft. In this kind of situation, why would you even mention key substitution attacks? It's like speculating about the owners of an Internet café implementing a TLS MITM attack in their own network's router in order to spy on HTTPS connections originating from their own machines. Why bother when you're root?
4 Essential Retirement Planning Questions
You Have Just 3 Seconds to Engage Visitors
I live on the city fringe. You live an hour out. You want to work from home, but you need to come in for a two meetings, one at the start of the day, one mid-afternoon. Wouldn't in be more convenient to have somewhere to work around that?
There is something similar in Berlin: http://www.meetup.com/Social-Pomodoro-Berlin/ (Inspired by Hoffice)
Show HN: Asteroids game made with polymer
Vertex attributes should probably be interleaved anyway.
You've described exactly how I feel about these things.
UDP is a lower level protocol than TCP so it's not an either/or as in "use UDP when low latency etc." is important and TCP when not.

Rather, you'd want to use a protocol built on UDP whenever you want something faster, better, more reliable than TCP.
Once I searched I found a website named pathlegal.It has many advocates.I think u may get responce or advices from here..You can check more from this link www.pathlegal.in
Several of the commenters below the article do a pretty good job of pulling the article apart because its assumptions simply aren't very good even when faced with today's data (and in the case of aircraft efficiency, are simply wrong). It's so well established that growth in energy use and population have slowed sharply in the industrialised world, and that energy use per unit of real GDP is falling sharply that any argument based on the assumption of constant, exponential rates of growth that doesn't address these points is utterly facile. His assumption that "a certain, finite fraction" of the population must be engaged in agriculture also seems to overlook the fact that this fraction has fallen sharply over time, and has plenty of scope to continue doing so.

The assumptions fundamentally aren't reasonable; they're considerably less reasonable than Malthus' arguments that economic growth could never outpace population growth in the first place, which were at least written just before world per capita output started to accelerate.

If economics isn't a hard enough science, then getting physicists to do the theorising instead doesn't seem to be helping ;-)
Meditation isn't religious hokum. The way meditation is delivered means it's frequently accompanied with religious hokum. That's a shame. Many people would benefit from meditation but are put off by the considerable amounts of woo that go with it.
Why is that guy's mac on fire?
I agree with you. While I don't code c++ now it used to be my tool of choice (right back to when it was a c pre-processor) and every time I look in, the language is uglier and conceptually heavier. If there's two ways to solve a problem, c++ will provide three - none of which work on their own without gotchas, none which play nicely with each other and each which will be required for working with some 3rd party library you need.
It just seems rather wasteful. I don't care if the guy has more money than me though I am stunned that someone who appears to be a programmer (like myself) would regard quite a few hundred dollars as a trivial matter.
As someone else mentions, I guess he must be very successful.
> the new trend of C++ programmers

Regrettably this trend is all but new. Boost is god knows how old now and just look how popular it is in certain circles.