skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I think it's called "incompatible" because it looks at it from the other direction, so to speak. There are valid Perl regular expressions, i.e. those using backtracking, that are incompatible with this regex engine.
That's not really true at all. Right now the cost of mining is MASSIVELY subsidized by the block reward, currently to the tune of just under $6k per block. Without the subsidy the actual cost of a transaction would be approximately $4...and it's only that cheap if every block is full.
Like many descendants of German Jews, I've long been fascinated by Hitler's rationale. I think, fundamentally, Hitler viewed the Final Solution as the lesser of two evils.

1918:

1. Jews make up a tiny percentage of Germany but they dominate Germany's media, banking, etc.

2. Germany wouldn't have lost the war if the Jews hadn't influenced the people back home using their control of the media. They were agents of the enemy, doing the bidding of their fellow Jews on the opposing side.

3. Jews are the reason millions of his fellow soldiers died in vain and Germany was humiliated.

1942:

4. Jews have used their influence in Britain and America to start another war with Germany.

5. This time the Jews will be eliminated so Germany won't be undermined again.

6. Killing a small percentage of the population spares the whole of the population from defeat and ruin. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. The Jews must die.
Apart from the functional differences,
OpenMP is implemented in compilers and support is currently hit-and-miss even though mainstream compilers are slowly getting there. So eg targeting Mac, Linux and Windows would probably get quite "interesting" if you wanted to support the platform's common vendor-provided compilers.
Understanding Hitler’s anti-semitism? You could start with the most Holy Office of the Inquisition and work your way forward. Most all nation states were virulently Anti-Semitism to varying degrees.
Norton Security 2015 Crack, Serial Key, Activation Code Full
"The book focuses on the integral role that the state and its institutions played in determining the effectiveness of Hitler’s genocide. Where states were destroyed, Jews were murdered; where the state remained intact, Jews could find some protection in bureaucracies and passports. It was in the stateless regions of Eastern Europe where the Nazis were able to experiment with and calibrate the Final Solution"

Well, that's one way of looking at it.

I guess if you are a proponent, or defendant of statist, authoritarian power, at some point you have to come up with some answer to the violence and repression of statist, authoritarian actors like Hitler.

Later:

"And again, that’s only possible—killing Jews is only possible—because states are destroyed."

I don't think this argument holds up when you extend your historical worldview to Soviet Russia under Stalin:

"Judging from the Soviet records we now have, the number of people who died in the Gulag between 1933 and 1945, while both Stalin and Hitler were in power, was on the order of a million, perhaps a bit more. The total figure for the entire Stalinist period is likely between two million and three million. The Great Terror and other shooting actions killed no more than a million people, probably a bit fewer."[1]

"The largest human catastrophe of Stalinism was the famine of 1930–1933, in which more than five million people died. ... Of those who starved, the 3.3 million or so inhabitants of Soviet Ukraine who died in 1932 and 1933 were victims of a deliberate killing policy related to nationality."[1]

That's the state and there's no argument. Perhaps they were not jews specifically, but that probably hurts the pro-statist argument even more: human beings (nazis) made human decisions to kill discriminately, whereas a machine (the soviet state) just steamrolls indiscriminately.

Even if one stipulates that the occupying and invading German forces were not "the state" (which I don't) it's still clear: the state is perfectly capable of killing jews by the millions.

[1] http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/mar/10/hitler-...
Hitler himself coined the term for how you accomplish such a feat: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie
This looks great but im curious, when do people actually use gdb shell instead of debugging in your IDE? I only do it during emergencies, such as a one in a million bug happened on a server which I can only access over SSH and this might be my only chance to find it. Maybe this tool could make that experience a bit closer to what I'm used to when using an ide.
> I've lived in the US and Australia and I think that the US system is vastly superior (assuming you have decent insurance).

Go ask your australian friends who lived in the US what they think. I've lived in the US and Israel, and spent considerable time in the UK (the latter two single payer systems), and I had great insurance living in the US.

The "standard of care" is a vague measure that could mean anything at all. Yes, being hospitalized in the US is more like a hotel room, one person per room.

But the doctors are considerably less experienced (structurally so), which means you get the wrong care for things that aren't common (from experience). The "out-of-pocket" on my great insurance in the US is significantly higher than my premium-to-make-include-hotel-room-stays in the other places. And I generally have much shorter waits for both routine visits and specialty doctors outside the US.

The US costs a lot more. In return, you get care that is lesser but is shinier. Every statistic of care effectiveness that I've seen ranks the US quite low -- mostly comparing life expectancy but also quality-of-life post treatment.

What's this "standard of care" you speak of?

Note, I'm unfamiliar with the australian system - it might be worse than the US on every front. But the Japanese, Swiss, British, most EU, and Israeli systems are not lesser and much, much cheaper, in my opinion and limited experience.

p.s. re "great insurance" - it's great until you really need it, but then it fails to be great way too often. Leading cause of bankruptcy in the US is medical expenses[0] - more than 50% of medical bankruptcies are by people who have insurance. How great is that?

[0] http://www.cnbc.com/id/100840148
If we use the super cheap Proton rocket costing $16,620 per kg to lift into space. (from wikip) A tonne is 1000kg. Then this will come in at a price of 1.7^14-1.7^15 which I think is 170-1700 trillion dollars.

Hmm. Carbon tax anyone?
Ask HN: JSON Web Token (JWT) Implementation Experiences
I have been playing around with JWT for a while now. Looks interesting enough for messing around with. However before adopting it in production, I'd love to hear your experiences, both good and bad, on it. What are some gotchas you've encountered?
Geography isn't taught as thoroughly as it used to be in ye olde days.

Young people don't read as much as they used to in ye olde days.

National Geographic tv is just trash reality shows.
It certainly would, but that is another discussion :)
I wish I hadn't bothered learning Haskell. I spent years thinking I was an idiot because I struggled and failed to make any even moderately complex programs. Now I'm using C++ and things are so much easier. I think leaving Haskell feels like leaving an abusive partner who always puts you down.
I agree with your criticism of affirmative action. The last company I worked at had a strong Women in Tech program, but one of the women of color described it as "white feminism." The company favored one axis, which was enough for it to become self-congratulatory.

But I don't think this quote is about quotas. At least not quotas for employment. The program is merely for getting resumes of underrepresented groups. If the employee referral network only produces resumes from homogenous candidates then this is a positive change.
Ask HN: My school needs a data storage solution
I work at a New York Public High School, and we're sick of dealing with the legacy Department of Education systems. You cannot imagine. We have to keep them up to date by hand anyway, so while we're at it, we want to build our own data store so that we can work with our data to help our students.

Our data isn't time-series, we need someplace to store our stuff, and we need advice from experts
It seems to me that Snyder is imposing an ex-post unity and coherence of thought upon a broken, irrational man, and somehow succeeding in joining up the dots into some accidental semblance of linearity. I'm by no means convinced that the eventual outcome was ’compatible’ with the initial mindset. Hitler in 1938 had no real reason to create an accommodation for what eventually came to pass in 1945 simply because (for him) it was probably almost impossible to anticipate; asymmetrically Hitler in 1945, faced with disaster, tried to shoehorn-in an interpretation of events that was as minimally discontinuous from his prior statements as possible.
Seems the carriers win some, lose some here because on the one hand with unlocked phones and no contract lockin, customers can move around, but on the other hand, customers are still paying the same monthly fees while no longer enjoying the contract discount, right? The extra benefit the customers do get to offset the loss of discount-with-contract is the annual phone upgrade, but it's Apple eating this cost, not the carriers. (A cost which gets passed on to the consumer in Apple's subscription scheme).

So for the customer, financially it's probably close to a wash, but for the carriers, there's some financial win at the cost of lockin because they aren't giving discounts any more but customers are still paying them the same amount of money. Sure, now customers are free to move around, but how many will? Probably a minority of them.
More like once out of 30k+ transactions. PayPal, AirBnB, and Raise all faced similar challenges.
Scientists have discovered why running makes you happy
Let me see if I can give some useful goalposts, ones commonly used with other technologies. Consider the classic technology adoption curve, which is the focus of industry classic "Crossing the Chasm":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_adoption_lifecycle

Oversimplifying, the Innovators, a few percent of a market, will buy anything just because it's cool. An obvious example there is Google Glass. Or a personal example, I just bought an IR camera for my phone. [1] I have absolutely no practical use for this, but that stopped me for about three seconds before I clicked "buy".

The next group is the Early Adopters. They buy in because they have a significant need not addressed by existing technology and are willing to work hard and/or pay lots to solve the problem. Then after that, we have the Early Majority, the first half of mainstream purchasers.

Now the supposed market of Bitcoin is "people spending or transferring money", which is a large fraction of humanity. So my goalpost would be getting out of the 2.5% of the market that is Innovators and well into the Early Adopters. Let's say 10% of the total market. (I'd even be happy with 10% of some major submarket, but since the claim is that Bitcoin will change everything, I'm glad to run with 10% of everything.)

From that standard, the fact that somebody bought a pizza is not so interesting. Ditto your hosting company; what you folks take in via Bitcoin in a year is about 0.00015% what AWS takes in in fiat dollars, or about 47 seconds of their annual revenue.

Ditto the things you mention with purse.io. Either they are subsidizing that 20% Amazon discount or there are hidden fees; Amazon makes under 10% on what they sell. As we learned in Bubble 1.0, you can't evaluate a business by the amazing deals they are using to acquire customers.

My prediction is that Bitcoin will never get close to the goalpost of 10% of the market, because nobody has found a way to solve a significant problem. My current belief that Bitcoin is Segway for the wallet: a really cool technology that almost nobody actually needs.

[1] http://www.flir.com/flirone/display/?id=69324
I think that's a worse sounding point of view. We only have value in context of our current generation?
I use GDB interactively pretty often, generally when working on cross-platform code.

Basically, I can't find any IDEs I like for linux, and the overhead of running a big IDE in a VM (which is where I do most of my cross-platform testing; I principally develop on windows) makes them painful to use.
Does your team do estimates in advance for how long a task should take or is it cowboy coding just creating random features the customer might want? If you have estimates, do you overshoot them or what is it that quantifies you as being slow? I would recommend breaking tasks down and giving each task an estimate that you should try to follow, with clearer goals and clearer deadlines its much easier to keep on track, the unit for estimating should be nr of days, not hours or minutes.
Back to BASIC – selection of BBC archive items about the BBC Micro
Thanks for the reminder, thought it was still a few weeks away.
> ... and your modulation rate switches faster than the human eye can detect (say > 60Hz) ...

I can pretty reliably see pulse rates up to ~120Hz. I know of many others who can, too. :) So, please, please, please don't give people the idea (even inadvertently) that pulse rates below 120Hz are going to be undetectable. :)
Google Inception Pretrained Network
FWIW, I think many would be ok with the statement -- it's not universally felt as cut and dry as you make it out to be.
> Death panels, anyone? By making it even harder to refuse to pay for a treatment, a single-payer system would increase demand and therefore prices even further. This is Econ 101 stuff; it's not some rabid flight of fancy.

Your interpretation of Econ 101 apparently is a rabid flight of fancy, - because if you look at the data, single payer systems pay less (often an order of magnitude less) for the same drugs.

First of all, the number of payers doesn't actually figure into Econ 101 arguments, because the demand is driven by the number of customers, who are generally speaking independent of whether the payment flows through one or 20 payers. If anything, it lets producer strongarm any one payer - as the customers shift to paying through other payers. There isn't much incentive for affordable prices.

In a single payer system, if the producer will charge too much, they have no one to sell to - which gives them an incentive to price it affordably.

Furthermore, the market is not free, neither in the US nor in single payer markets. The US market is regulatorily tilted towards producers (e.g., it is illegal for you to buy your medicine abroad, even if it is the same one produced in the US by the same factory and company, and maybe even same batch). Single payer markets are tilted towards the buyers.

Death panels already exist in the US, except they are privatized. Do you really believe that private-for-profit insurance companies just give everyone everything that could help them? If you do believe that, then - yes, I think it's some rabid flight of fancy. I've known quite a few cases in which they don't. And if you don't, then you agree that death panels already exist.
Classify cancers by the tissue origin is only of partial help in treating. A cancer may arise in the liver, but be totally refractory to one treatment, but respond to another.

One way to workout how many different cancers there are when classified by treatment response is to look at the true cure rate to when a cancer is treated using a treatment. Since the treatments we have are biased in targeting the most common sub-types this can only give us a lower bound, but even this number is huge since the cancer cure rate is not that high for the most common cancers (I am not talking about 5 year survival, but real cure). My rough guess is there are 10,000s of different cancers when classified by treatment response.
So should no one choose to pay for probable cures to their issues?
If there's no conceivable experiment to test whether it's just a copy, then it seems like the copy isn't any different than the original.
I don't think this guy is doing a great job of trying to understand Hitler by using his own "intuition" and then searching back through Mein Kampf to find things that support it.

The guy is acting like Hitler invented anti-Semitism. But really, it was an extremely common piece of the cultural furniture in early 20th century Germany. This being the case, is it really likely that Hitler's antisemitism was somehow original and philosophically distinct from everyone else's? I doubt it, I think it originated in the same place that it did for a lot of other people, and like most anti-semites (or anti-various-other-things) he tried to justify it in a number of different ways at different times.

It's not that hard to understand where German anti-semitism came from (of course understanding something is not the same as excusing it), it's a drearily common pattern that we see all over the world, any place and time that we have two poorly-integrated groups living together and one is statistically more successful than the other. The less successful group (which may be smaller or larger than the more successful) inevitably grows to resent the more successful group and blame their own lack of success on them. Crises tend to exacerbate the resentment.

It's a pattern we've seen all over the world, all through history, and Nazi Germany is unusual only in that it all happened to end particularly badly.
Just this week I got a 2-month wait from a US hospital for a scan I got a 1-month delay outside the US. And that's a major, top ten US hospital, not some dinky place no one has heard of (but it's a non-standard scan setting, I'll grant you that). And the out-of-pocket (despite having insurance) is almost as high as the entire scan if I did it privately in the other place (which I pay zero for - it's all covered)

> That money is going somewhere.

Mostly to the pockets of the health insurance companies, which rake in ridiculous profits for providing services which are essentially non-existent and not needed almost anywhere else in the world.
Ignore the Headlines: We Don’t Know If E-Cigs Lead Kids to Real Cigs
U.S. moves to drop spy charges against Temple professor
An Old-School Board Game Goes Viral Among Silicon Valley's Techie Crowd (2009)
I love it when scientists assure us of our safety.
Rocket Internet Acquires Zoodfood in Iran
Well these two problems are technical problems that can only occur if the key economic problem can be overcome. You can only have issues with enrolling people in a trial if the trial is at least attempted.

The current thinking is that cancers are not evolving for resistance during treatment, but that there are a sub-population of cells present in the tumour mass that are being selected for by treatment (i.e. we kill 99% of the tumour that is sensitive and the 1% that is resistant grows back).

We know how to solve this problem from HIV. HIV evolves resistance to drugs faster than any cancer yet we can treat patients for years by using HAART (i.e. give lots of drugs at once that target different key components). We need to do this with cancer, but this will require developing new drugs that are less lethal since you can't just give a patient a dozen standard anti-cancer drugs and expect them to live.
> At the end of the war, Hitler said, ‘Well the Germans lost, that just shows the Russians are stronger. So be it. That’s the verdict of nature.’ I don’t think a nationalist would say that.

No, but a fatalist would. And failure makes fatalists of us all. When we succeed, it's because we're brilliant and terrific. When we fail, it's fate.

Few people in history have ever failed quite as spectacularly as Hitler did by the end of the war, so it's not surprising that he was, by this stage, an angry fatalist.
> Making predictions is the main way to test out theories.
Only if you can then test those predictions otherwise they're kinda useless beyond philosophical reasons.

> How many medieval people do you think we would unfreeze&revive given such choice?

That is a false choice; why are the resources constrained so that the choice is between reviving 100,000 people or extending the lives of 100,000 people? Arguably we should have more resources in the future than today, more professionals, etc so why can't they do two things? Have we stopped scientific research to the point where no one is concentrating on historic man or reviving past humans?

People are curious, obviously we would do it. At the very least it would be interesting science. Can we bring back people frozen 200 years ago? Who knows until we try!
>Classify cancers by the tissue origin is only of partial help in treating. A cancer may arise in the liver, but be totally refractory to one treatment, but respond to another.

Well, sure. That's my point, though. Cancers that arise indifferent parts of the body may be treatable with the same drug.

>One way to workout how many different cancers there are when classified by treatment response is to look at the true cure rate to when a cancer is treated using a treatment.

That's the current situation as it stands today. It's not necessarily what we'll see in five or ten years.
I've been doing a lot of reading on the First World War and thinking about how it affected what came later. When I read about Hitler's view of the world, I can't help but wonder if it was forged in the savage darwinian struggle of trench warfare. It strikes me as the mentality of a generation that has been brutalized by violence, and is now convinced that violent struggle is all that matters.
How to do action comedy, Jackie Chan
Not from Russia, but I imagine it was a similar situation over the border: another part is that you literally could not buy original versions due to lack of distributors / internet / easy connectivity. Or if you found a way, a typical game would cost you half the family spending budget for a month. So it's not always due to only lax copyright enforcement, but simply because cracking software was close to the only way to use it.
Iczelion's tuts maybe?

http://win32assembly.programminghorizon.com/tutorials.html
David Heinemeier Hansson – The Pareto Principle and Stoic Philosophy
That's not really their job. There might be scientific facts that threaten us and scientific facts that reassure us. To reveal these facts is the job of the scientist.