skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Nope. Tried Gun Emacs with such a mode for a bit recently because that came as a default in a Clojure editing recipe I found, but having using versions of EMACS to edit LISP since 1980 I found it more annoying than helpful, there are times when I want to mangle the text and fix the parens afterwards.

For me the two keys are smart indention and the habit of counting off each opening paren at the beginning of an indented line as I close it. I did this sort of work on GoldHill's EMACS clone in the brief period I worked for them, getting it to blink the opening paren when the point is positioned to the right of the closing paren.
Probably because it's in use on BSD-based network appliances you don't have access to look inside. It would be great for anti-DDoS and IPS/IDS devices.
> I wouldn't be eager to continue on with a project after getting that reception either.

So google's feelings got hurt? Give me a break. Obviously they were primarily motivated by attracting the almighty user attention, and positive pr to their brand, all part of a long term strategy for money, and that didn't work out so well, and they never cared much about doing a public good, or else they would continue to support the over 1 million public domain books they have. Or, if they really cared, they would have put code of their books site out as free software, and helped share their entire collection of public domain books with other organizations.
yeah, thats what I thought. These libraries do help to some extent but I think the underlying problem of TCP still remains the same. I wonder how these libraries are handling the problem of request pipelining.
Right from the article:

> When I initially wrote down my reactions to Go, I didn’t know about another new systems language: Rust.

But maybe I'm misreading (honestly).

Still they end up getting compared an awfully lot, more than they're compared to closer languages. At any rate, yeah, I find it very weird that the languages are compared. There seems to be very little overlap in when you'd want to use them.

If you aren't bound by C-linkage or zero-runtime/overhead requirements, then there are higher level, more flexible languages to use than Rust. If you do have those requirements, Go simply isn't an option. (This is a bit simplistic but is generally correct.)

Edit: I see you're taking an overly literal interpretation of "only". You're right. Anyone can compare anything for any reason. I think the intent of my comment is clear enough.
The thing about Shakespeare's plays is that they're plays. Performance pieces. Written by an actor. Shakespeare wrote with the intent that most people would engage with his words by hearing them spoken by actors performing on a stage.

That feels like an obvious point. But there's often a tendency, especially among literature and English professors, to approach Shakespeare with the belief that most authentic way to engage with the text is by reading it off a page. Whatever the source of that belief, it isn't grounded in the nature or history of Shakespeare's work.
HQPLRStore
Thanks for the link! Is this really a state of the art right now? I was a bit disappointed when I saw the video... Gestures look awkward.
Is GeneXus the silver bullet for programming projects?
I find it strange that haven't read a lot about GeneXus (http://www.genexus.com/) in English-speaking forums since it looks like the ultimate solution for software development projects. It is basically a huge code generator targeting different platforms and languages based on a knowledge base. The main philosophy of the tool is that one should spend time to describe program functionality instead of actually coding it. Has anyone used it? What do you think about it?
I am no designer either, which is why every project of mine starts with Bootstrap :D
> I think the right way to look at programming language features is to look at the cost-benefit tradeoff. Generics, to me, are clearly on one side of the line.

The right way is to look at the cost-benefit tradeoff in context. There is no fixed line. Go has goroutines and channels because the designers judge that for the area they're aiming at, the benefit outweighs the cost.

Same with generics - don't conflate them being good for you in your circumstance to them being good for everyone in every circumstance. We can argue to the ends of the earth where that line lies, but the fact is that some people in enjoy the simplicity that comes from Go not having them.

(You could argue this is just another Blub paradox, but IMHO that would only make sense if the designers weren't proficient in languages including generics, like Java.)
I read the article and I don't think they answered one of my biggest questions: is there a causative link from artistic endeavors to improvement in scienctific endeavors? Learning a musical instrument has been on my todo list for a while and I can't help but wonder in light of articles such as these if it would have other ancillary benefits to my cognition.
Crypto Throwdown – AUD $250,000 grand prize
To be fair the combined overrepresentation of men and underrepresentation of white people may well mean white men are overrepresented, and you started your post with the words "White men". But yeah, in terms of ethnicity those figures are not what you would expect from reading some media representations of the tech industry. I'll be interested to hear what the big problems and flawed reasoning alluded to elsewhere are.
>Operating systems/embedded applications can generally use `core`.

Which doesn't, correct me if I'm wrong, provide a stable allocator API or OOM handling yet.

>E.g. games

When your client pings 400 servers, how is it doing that? How is the game server implemented?

>a scientific simulation

That runs on one machine, and doesn't do a lot of disk IO? (concurrent file IO matters too).

>even web-browsers

Open the Chrome dev tools "network" tab, and then open Gmail. How many requests did it make?

Again, concurrent IO is important.
> Privilege increases merit

That definition of "merit" implies that whites have more merit than blacks (because they tend to be more privileged) and men have more merit than women. If your goal is to increase diversity, that's not a helpful definition.

> Why would you ever assume meritocracy would naturally lead to a diverse workplace?

Exactly. Any definition of "meritocracy" will have embedded biases, and so won't lead to a diverse workplace. That's why I saw this as such good advice.

> But I don't think it's responsible to not acknowledge that white men are not the best qualified candidates

If the definition of "best qualified" favors white men, then of course white men are more likely to be the "best qualified" candidates. It's a classic example of structural discrimination.
That's a great one. Thanks for posting because I myself think they would do well with SSL, I'm sure a lot of people would definitely try it out. :) By the way, may be contacting NameCheap would be good.
+1 Neuromancer was a wild ride for me, Gibson practically invented cyberpunk fiction when he wrote this novel.

Ahh, Case will always be in my heart! :)
Maybe the parent didn't have to cock the gun, but for goodness sakes, don't pull the trigger ;)
> The attitude from the Go community is almost like an anti-intellectual one isn't it?

I hear you. There was a funny post a couple years ago weighing a bunch of languages on republican/conservative vs. democrat/liberal scale. But the author erred with Go. Go is certainly the most republican conservative language out there today.

Go not only adopts the anti-intellectual stance but comes across as a language that's controlled by "religious leaders" who dictate not only the the direction of the language but its "morality" too. And those who use the language feel the same hidden pressures from constraints. This leads to a weird state of having to "believe" in a language and defending things: "like less is more", "choices are bad", and having others determining what you want and need.

And this is the most annoying part. Because Go is really not a bad language. It's simple and constrained but easy to get into and easy to get stuff done. But Go's the whole attitude comes across as somewhat off-putting to window shoppers who might actually purchase and be fine with it otherwise.
I wonder, how often do people study films by reading the scripts? I know it happens, but it seems pretty rare.
No, I'm not implying a logical disconnect; I'm saying that if your goal is diversity, the notion of a "meritocracy" gets in the way. More in my comment at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10208825
If you're going to bring it down to that kind of strange technicality then yes - those people are using it because it provides them value in whatever form.

It's not up to you to judge what that value is and whether you think it's good for them.
I have a suggestion: Put a demo on your web site.

edit: Another suggestion... use a proper source of random numbers in init_aes_key_iv(). Using the time isn't good.
You might not like to hear this perspective, but that doesn't make it any less true.

Many corporations produce lots of value that is based on corrupt moral values: from companies doing arms sales in third-world countries (i.e. profiting from destruction and death in impoverished areas of the globe) to corporations selling animals parts as products (i.e. profiting from the ownership and abuse of sentient beings).

I'm not directly comparing Google to other truly evil corporations, but I will damn right call out ethically and morally flawed business models when I see them.
And C11 has _Generic for macros (though it's rather limited and really more just like overloading than generics).
Mostly agree, but I'm sure you must have meant UN-checked exceptions :-)

if ( somethingICanDoNothingAbout)
{ throw new UncheckedGameOverException( "You're screwed!") }

...

// top level event/request/message handler, many layers up
catch ( Throwable e)
{ log.error( "Game over:", e); ... }

(I'm with the Anders/C# camp on this one, as much as I dislike MS otherwise)
Virtual DOM approaches never really were about performance. They are about being able to write idempotent render functions in declarative style so that you don't need to deal with massive amounts of DOM state management.

In the end you want to write a function that just expresses what the state of the DOM should be depending on the input parameters and have something deal with applying those changes to a very stateful API. If the application state changes, all you want to do is say 'things have changed somehow, just re-render this component'.

This was possible before with classic templating, but it wasn't very efficient and had problems when dealing with re-rendering interactive elements. You would lose focus on input fields for example, and had to use some post-render hooks to fix the state of the DOM up afterwards.

Using virtual DOM structures fixed this problem in an elegant way and allowed rendering to the DOM to be integrated into more functional programming styles, which made more reactive architectures possible.

It all boils down to humans not being good with reasoning about state changes over time and how to express those imperatively. The only solution to that is not to do it and go more functional.

This is also why I am not a big fan of things like incremental-dom. It ignores the whole idea why we wanted declarative DOM handling in the first place and replaces it with a very imperative and side-effect heavy API. In that case, just use the DOM directly.
> push for a single-payer system (which is even farther in the wrong direction),

Why do you think it's in the wrong direction?

Many countries have socialized medicine, some of which have single payer, and I've never met a person who experienced a single payer system who didn't think it was the right way to go.
> But the willful and unnecessary paraphrasing of code, replacing all the CamelCase variables with underscored variables, and code which is worse than the original, is hard to overlook. “I recommend you for example this edX course” does not give sufficient credit to the teachers and staff of CS100.1x.

Anyone here have access to one of those code-plagiarizing detection systems used at CS schools? How would it fare on this kind of obfuscation?

I know that a plagiarized program that tries to just futz variable names is probably computationally easy to detect. And even extremely computationally exhaustive comparisons would be feasible, because the average college only has to deal with a few hundred to a thousand students a semester.

But would the algorithm even have to be more sophisticated than doing just a plain diff and applying some heuristic, even just the ratio of identical lines to total lines? My perception of students who would cheat in a 101CS class is that they are so incompetent that they don't even know how to change a variable name in a program without breaking the code...nevermind rearranging the order of a loop operation. Any student who could confidently obfuscate their plagiarism of 101-level program assignment is probably smart enough to just do the program themselves.
Is "Greyspots" just Polymer? There seems to be no real info on the site about it?
This is a neat idea, but it has a flaw.

The flaw is that Navlio is basing the recommendations on long equity positions (as well as other securities reported in HFs' 13F filings). But hedge funds hedge their bets -- hence the name -- by placing more complicated bets than just buying long, and that includes short sales. You don't have to report short sales in a 13F.

https://www.sec.gov/divisions/investment/13ffaq.htm

If you don't know both sides of HFs' bets, you actually have no idea how they feel about a company. They could have a big long position and a bigger short that's not reported.

It's central to a hedge fund's business to conceal the kind of bets they are making, and what they plan to do, until the precise moment that it benefits them for the rest of the market to pile in.
"Woz prototyped the guts of the Apple II, but needed a lot of help from people like Fernandez to turn it into reliable, repeatable hardware":

https://www.reddit.com/r/business/comments/3jyovw/woz_jobs_d...
They're not so much echoes as a continuing necessity. System calls in UNIX-style operating system APIs generally return two integer values, a file descriptor/character count/ID/whatever and an error code; and because the twain are largely mutually exclusive the system call mechanism usually (dependent from the architecture of course) has some way of marshalling that into one processor register, be it using alternative return addresses or a flag bit such as the carry flag in the status word.

The OS/2 Control Program API and the Windows NT Native API return the error codes explicitly from the HLL wrapper functions, the (for example) open file handle returned from DosOpen() being an integer passed by reference, and their system call marshalling is thus somewhat different. It helps that calling conventions such as APIENTRY32 (http://homepage.ntlworld.com./jonathan.deboynepollard/FGA/fu...) lend themselves easily to a treat-the-stacked-arguments-as-a-structure system, moreover.

I implemented a similar API once, marshalling by-reference system call arguments through processor registers using a pass-by-value-return scheme.
I was interested, but not surprised.
Hi, I'm the author. If you have any questions please feel free to ask, I'll be checking in periodically.
I love the story of LTCM. It was pure mathematical hubris, but it was also amazing what they accomplished before they crashed. I mean 40% returns year over year for nearly 3 years wasn't just luck.

The crazy thing about LTCM, and the thing that everybody overlooks is that LTCM didn't die by bankruptcy...they died because of the systemic risk of their portfolio size and the subsequent intervention from the federal reserve. They had $100B under management, but only lost $5B in 4 months. It was a major catastrophe, sure, but it was only major because of the implications from its absolute size. A 5% drop in 4 months is something that can be recovered from on a personal portfolio level or even a small hedge fund level...but at LTCM's size it was endangering the financial system as a whole because it was threatening to bankrupt overleveraged institutional investors.

Jane Street Capital, while very opaque about what they do, has given me enough room to believe that LTCM has inspired a lot of their strategy. This always makes others perceive me as a quack that doesn't like history, but if another LTCM came around that was using the same strategy but on a much smaller scale and with a well spelled-out liquidation strategy, I would invest. In fact, I would probably bet big on it (>50% of my portfolio).

Nobody is gonna touch it though, because everybody is so conservative in finance. "We're gonna follow LTCM's strategy" isn't a sales pitch, it's a punch line. But outside of finance, there is a ton of precedent for monumental successes with an idea that has failed before. And I think LTCM is one of those ideas.
Why all of this focus on "people" and "if they did" placeholding for your own opinions? It may drive home how dystopic they are if you deign to own them.

The competition for health is illness, infirmity, and death, and I don't see it as anything but cruel for the free market to force people to choose between these options. Yes, people will (attempt to) pay any price for drugs, because it's their life. This seems uncontroversial.

The reasons third-party payer persists has nothing to do with any fashionability of opposing it. The fact is that nearly every country with universal healthcare (not sure if this is included in what you deride as "fashionable" single-payer) has a higher standard of living than the US.
They spend more on marketing than R&D.
> Same with generics - don't conflate them being good for you in your circumstance to them being good for everyone in every circumstance. We can argue to the ends of the earth where that line lies, but the fact is that some people in enjoy the simplicity that comes from Go not having them.

You can find some person who enjoys anything. But I think having basic OCaml-style generics has essentially zero downsides and so many upsides that it's essentially an open and shut judgment call for every statically typed language.
Moving to Wyoming: Dependency Injection in Python
It absolutely does provide value. Many (ab)users of illegal substances use them to provide relief from the emotional pain of traumatic experiences or mental illnesses.
information about you and the places you visit != free
Yes, always use a limit order. It looks like you can make some money on those big dips on crazy days.
As someone who always used to always get the Debian net install, then upgrade to Sid, this has been my favorite distro for years. Frenchmaid and dkegr tools are great, community is second to none, and there is a lot of innovation with new tools/scripts while keeping a traditionally UNIX beardlength. Think of LinuxBBQ as what crunchbang (#!) should have been all along. Being able to snapshot your system ("roll/roast your own") into a live image is also a great tool. I use this as my primary desktop OS. Great for lovers of tiling WMs like I3.

Edit: come meet the meat on freenode at #linuxbbq
Why are we so scared of death, to be nothing. Why do we have to cling on to someone's memories,is it because it gives some sense of security?

It is just bizarre to reduce the beauty of life to some some little affair of holding on to someone's memories.

Death is as beautiful as birth. We should break past the ridiculous taboos surrounding death and discuss it openly as to what it means to die.

Edit: Jiddu K on death, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_OzCrmqxRE
A couple disagreement downvotes. Anybody who also has some counter-arguments of his own to make?
I've implemented this toy compiler (minus JIT) in Java, following the tutorial on the LLVM website (which uses C). After browsing through the Haskell code, it is incredible how much more suitable a statically-typed, functional language is for compiler development when compared to an imperative language like Java. The code is much more terse and most importantly, readable.
The Math I Learned After I Thought Had Already Learned Math
Your reasoning is not just a bit simplistic, it's overly reductive. Just because I'm not bound by C-linkage or zero-runtime/overheard requirements doesn't mean Rust isn't a good choice. Similarly, even if I do need to link to a C library, that doesn't mean Go is a bad choice.

> There seems to be very little overlap in when you'd want to use them.

If all you're going to do is consider each respective language's wheelhouses, then I might agree that there is little overlap (at least, currently). But in my experience, there are often plenty of other reasons in play that influence language choice. I once chose a language (not Rust/Go) purely because of how popular/accessible it was. There was no technical merit there, but because of that choice, the project has gotten very popular and used by a lot of people.

At work, a few months ago, we had an internal debate over whether to use Rust or Go for a new project. There's plenty of overlap. Not every problem has a workable solution governed by uncompromisable requirements that uniquely identify a language, so one invariably winds up adopting other criteria for choosing a language. These criteria may not be uniquely technical; they may be social or even emotional.

I contend that nothing I've said here is controversial. My goal is to encourage others to broaden their horizons; we don't need to put our blinders on and snub our noses at people that do things differently. (Which is absolutely how I perceived your comments in this thread.)
They can download a 32-bit version of kdb+ for evaluation purposes, not sure if they could publish any benchmarks, and it would obviously not properly represent the speed (and capacity) of the 64-bit version.

But I suspect that even the 32-bit kdb+ is going to be significantly faster than this gorilla.
Strange, I'm quite fond of paredit sexp transformation, wrap, unwrap, slurp etc. It's a nice 'UX' algebra.
Is your goal to get a better salary or move out of where you currently live (Country) ?
There is an obvious line between being non-intuitive or unobvious and reasons to think something exists or not. A UI cannot rely solely on intuition alone; investigation must be encouraged too.
Submitted 3 times in 20 minutes. This looks like the first submission: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10208792
William Gibson said it best: "All any drug amounts to is tweaking the incoming data. You have to be incredibly self-centered or pathetic to be satisfied with simply tweaking the incoming data."

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/William_Gibson
Yes languages like Haskell and Lisp are excellent for compiler development, as a compiler is one big pure function that involves a lot of transformations on recursive data structures. And what are language academics interested in doing? Implementing languages. So the languages they design are often suited to that task.
Have an international agreement that every country pays an amount based on the GDP into a fund and distribute that money based on prior research success. Make the results available to everyone at no costs and let them produce and sell drugs at self cost prices. No profits for investors, no patents, more or less fair research cost distributions, drugs as cheap as they can get. A global solution for a global problem.
Social Metadata for the Upcoming UEFA Champions League
How the FDA process is biased against new technology
iOS 9 safari adblockers will ruin mobile ad revenue
Venn Read will be every new publishers savior. By bringing multi platform mobile app in time. So the publisher focuses on the content and Venn Read on bringing the best performance in ad revenue and user engagement. Without building there own app eco system. Please vote up today on producthunt. Http://www.producthunt.com/tech/venn-read
Once you're dead you'll miss out on all the cool stuff that's happening.

It's bad enough we missed out on all the stuff that happened before we died.