skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
How did you hurt yourself on machines/dumbbells? Not rhetorical - I would like to avoid doing the same mistakes.

And yes, I do have horrible technique. And since I don't have a personal trainer, no one is ever going to tell me when my technique slips, so I'd rather not rely on it.
This one contains fantastic snippets.

"Belief or nonbelief in God is irrelevant to our understanding of the workings of nature—just as it’s irrelevant to the question of whether or not citizens are obligated to follow the law."

"Five hundred years of science have liberated humanity from the shackles of enforced ignorance. We should celebrate this openly and enthusiastically, regardless of whom it may offend."
How about "data is the n-dimensionally measured point and information is data plus some reference and dimensional axes" as a working definition?
A Decade of Clos Topologies and Centralized Control in Google’s Network
IANADBA, but "normalizing something more" without taking into account the performance impact or the overall usability for the end user sounds like a design mistake.

Everything is a nail and all that...
For how much you can sell the Planet Earth?
Real scientists with half an ounce of amateur-level psychology and social-sciences under their belt ought to be capable of realizing that scientists writ large are capable of: having a variety of different personal goals (including desired sociopolitical outcomes), thinking intelligently about whether or not "militantism" in their belief system is the most effective way to achieve their goals all the time (or if they'd attract more flies with honey than vinegar), the extent to which it's ethical to inflict their beliefs and goals on an unwilling populace (whether that be university students or the people of the world), whether irrational behaviors are sometimes perhaps super-rational, and the role that this "religion" concept has played in human evolution and society.+

They're allowed a choice of answers, of course, so saying "all scientists should be militant atheists" is painting with a brush too broad.

They should also (generally speaking) welcome people from a diversity of cultures and ways of thinking, as these people can provide different perspectives on the questions in their field.

+ good book, btw: http://www.amazon.com/Religion-Human-Evolution-Paleolithic-A...
Science doesn't care about 'truth', but about falsifiable explanations and predictions. This is a complete opposite of religion.

Science admits there is a lot of things we don't understand, yet religion asserts a universal explanation of everything, God.
That's missing the point, I think. Dr. Krauss wouldn't avoid challenging non-religious beliefs and theories that he believes are wrong, either. For example, he's vocal on climate change, and while there's some overlap between religiosity and disbelief in climate change (or disbelief that it matters even if it is occurring), the core claims of climate change vs no climate change are about sources of data and validity of models, which are secular arguments.

Pointing out that the sociological pathologies that lead to bad beliefs under religion can also exist in an ostensibly religion-free culture or group does not address the disparity in social acceptance of critique between bogus religious doctrine and bogus non-religious doctrine.

Krauss's argument is not that we should try to eradicate anything that encourages wrong belief (Krauss is not as extreme as Harris or Dawkins). Rather, Krauss's argument is that religious beliefs should be as open to criticism as non-religious belief (and not defended simply because they're religious in origin).
In case anyone is still reading this and is interested: http://www.enterprisedb.com/postgres-plus-edb-blog/marc-lins... shows that as well.
Building Your Own IoT Boards Using the Particle Photon
Oath Keepers intend to “protect” Davis from American law enforcement
tools for creating minimal docker images:

- https://github.com/djosephsen/skinnywhale

- https://github.com/larsks/dockerize

-
The scientific method is not strictly sound from a logical perspective - it depends on the acceptance of an unproven prior axiom, namely that the universe works through repeatable rules and all knowledge about it can be acquired by performing controlled experiments. That axiom is not falsable, and therefore does not follow the scientific method; but as long as the results of this process are consistent - i.e. devoid from contradictions, we accept it for pragmatic reasons.

Scientific religious people work from a slightly different set of axioms: there is God which defines how the universe behaves, and knowledge is acquired by a combination of empiric observation and introspection about
your own and others' feelings. As long as the results of this process are also consistent, there is no logical difference between both philosophical approaches - either both are rational, or neither are.

I would love that more atheists understood the philosophical problem of the Regress argument [1] - it would make science-religion debates much more friendly and respectful.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regress_argument
This is extremely good advice: it's never good to make enemies.

I'd also make sure that there is no easy route for them to take your code to someone else (and then most-likely rip them off too).
Have you phoned them? People find it a lot harder to ignore phone calls than emails.

I've known companies (and larger companies are often actually worse for this) who practically have a policy of stalling all payments unless it actually causes problems.

Also, in a company of any size the people who pay you in their finance team ("accounts payable") will probably be completely separate to the people who you are working for - see if someone internal can apply pressure to the finance folks.
It depends. In the US, trademarks are intended to protect the consumer, not the company. If consumers no longer associate a name with a particular brand, then the company loses control over the trademark. So long as a company continues to defend the trademark, they maintain control of it. That is why, for example, Xerox had a massive advertising campaign for the use of the word "photocopy". Previously, "Xerox" was used to refer to making a copy of a document, and Xerox (the company) was in danger of losing the trademark.

Wikipedia has a good list of names that are in the process of becoming generic, much to the dismay of the companies that hold the trademarks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_genericize...
I'm kind of in love with you after writing this. Thank you for doing what so few product and service companies do: naming a product in a manner that makes it almost instantly-understandable as to what problem it solves.
Rapid App Development with Ionic, Sails, and Mongo
I don't think that an attempt to bluff sociopaths is sufficient benefit for a generalized belief in a specific revengeful or judgemental higher being.
Comments are useful, if they provide insight. They are not useful, if they do not.

Tests can provide a number of things: they can serve as API examples, assure functionality, speed up implementing new functionality and debugging.

If you tests don't do these things, they are not worth keeping, either.
I use Etcd as a simple 'service registry' for a microservices based system running on FreeBSD (mostly written in Go). I like the simplicity of it.

I've used Zookeeper in the past for a dosgi monstrosity and it was a never-ending source of pain. I haven't looked at Consul, but since I already have a good grasp on how Etcd works, I probably won't bother with it.
I'd say run on Heroku, but IIRC they gave up on their free plan. You could run on Google App Engine though, IIRC they still offer a free service up until a certain number of requests or CPU usage or something in that direction. You could use those to determine how much your application actually uses the service.

IIRC, Amazon also offers services for a fixed monthly price, you could look into that too.
Yep that's why I was asking what he meant...
For future reference (F*ck You. Pay Me):https://vimeo.com/22053820
As someone who do not believe in some higher powers and live without god, I can not disagree more with this view.

Not only is it simplistic to say the least it's also completely missing the point of science.

But even worse is that it's promoting a kind of atheism that is primarily of interest to a minute group of atheist who have been replacing religion with obsession.

Scientists can be doomsday religions fanatics for all I care. As long as they are curious, methodic, critical and factual; they are going to produce just as good work as someone who believes that scientists should be militant atheist.
Science and religion conflict because they're both seen as a source of truth.

Religion claims to be the source of [absolute] truth.

Science seems to be most humble about it, always self-doubting, always open to better explanations.

If both scientists and religious leaders could accept the 'all I know is that I know nothing' idea, I suspect there'd be much fewer issues between them.

Religion is much more than [absolute] truth.

It also claims [absolute] morality.

Absolute rules.

And that means their leaders, their belief and their rules are untouchable and will always be.
Small claims is probably the best option here. After winning in court, if they don't pay then the next step is to file for a lein. When they go to get a loan or sell their house, they will have to take care of the lein. So you may get paid eventually.

I took a roofer to small claims court and won. He didn't pay, but I didn't bother with the leins because I really didn't want the extra aggravation. In retrospect, I probably should have.
If you had a disk drive, that is. Many if not most MSX machines were typically used as game consoles running games from cartridges.

On CPC6128 the disk drive was standard (and yes, it was that strange 3" variant, not using the 3.5" disks that would later be known as the "3D model of the save icon".)
The "all scientists should be militant atheists" part was more like "if liking good explanations over superstitious tradition is called militant atheism then yes, call me a militant atheist".
I don't believe there is sufficient evidence for the existence of a super-natural, omnipotent being.

Further, I believe that the Gods described by every major religion were invented by humans.

As for strictly believing there is no god, it would require super-natural evidence to prove the non-existence of a super-natural being. Therefore, it's a nonsense question.

On the whole, this classifies me as an atheist. It requires no faith to believe that a mystic book, and a bunch of people who believe in it, are self-deluded. It is the extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary proof. Asserting the extraordinary claim is most likely not true is not a matter of faith, it should be the default position - especially after the overwhelming lack of evidence.
Can you set the skin color or it has to be a yellow hand? For when you need to add a certain specific racial factor to your insult?
I would be very interested in benchmarks comparing it to the native version
Show HN: A playground for in-browser interpreters
I don't think either science or religion are seen as a source of the truth. They're both methods established to help seek the truth, be it rational truth in the case of science, or irrational truth in the case of religion, but neither purport to provide absolute answers.

I suppose between the times of Newton and Einstein you could say that science did purport to be able to provide all the answers, but I'm not sure that can still be claimed after Heisenberg.
Don't forget the bots wishing to cheat on their husbands.
The first snippet is quite absurd. Historically, laws are based on religious believes, or at least sacred texts.

The inherent difficulty of our modern society is to find new basis for grounding our laws on. But science is irrelevant in that matter. Which is why we see a resurgence of religious believes nowadays.
Disappointing that bullshit clickbait articles get so much traction on HN.

> The Kim Davis story raises a basic question:

No, it really doesn't. A person's right to freedom of religion means they cannot be compelled to perform actions incompatible with that religion. Kim Davis is not compelled to marry gay people. Kim Davis chooses a job that has the requirement to marry gay people. Kim Davis is free to chose a job that fits her religion better. Sucks for her that the requirements of the job changed halfway through her career, but I guess I can't muster too much sympathy for ignorant fucking bigots who've forced their hate onto other people.
Like math? ;)
Anecdote: after deploying and maintaining applications in Opsworks for a while I feel it's comparatively incredibly hard to do that anywhere else.

The services they offer are great. Remember that you don't have to learn them all at once though. I've worked with amazon services for a couple of years and I still don't know/haven't used most of them. Just use what you need, really.
Thanks so much.

Yes, we've pivoted a few times, first starting out with trying to be the 'github for live API's, which is an idea we love but found that the chicken-and-egg situation was tricky to overcome, and that most users just wanted a way to deploy their code to the code to support a webservice.

As such we pivoted to building a shared hosting service that let's users just write their code and deploy it.

Regarding your 3 questions, my preliminary responses would be (bear in mind we probably would need to think about this further!),

1) We were super excited by the idea based on our own use cases - I found it a nightmare trying to build a distributed back-end to process video in the cloud for a previous startup. This got in the way of building my product but had to be done. Similarly, my co-founder ahead ran into the same issue when he needed to perform web-rendering on the server and just needed an easy way to wrap up this functionality. At this point we though perhaps we could use containers to wrap up the code but found the container ecosystem was focussed heavily on dev-ops and not services, so we built this.

2) Yes, totally agree - our messaging needs a lot of work, we've actually become a lot better in real life but unfortunately haven't updated the website to reflect this!

The basic problem is that deploying your code to the cloud is hard. After writing your code locally, you have to do all kinds of orchestration to get your code into the cloud, run it at scale, handle faults, client integration, and more. We feel we can make this simpler.

As for why you'd want to move your code to the cloud, hmm, that's a good question. Why the cloud? Don't worry about physical infrastructure., have capacity and capability to scale up compute resources dynamically, ignore hardware maintenance and amortise sys-ops costs with other users.

Getting across why users want our code to get to the cloud, if they know what the cloud is, is tricky.
Absolutely, becoming an easy way to get code into the cloud followed after this, as we realised just how hard it was. We've moved to the cloud but our tools haven't.

3) Yes, this is the hard bit. Lots of users have existing code, perhaps in the cloud already or locally deploy. They don't know or care about Docker / Kubernetes, etc - and shouldn't have to. We think Docker is a great building block to build services on top of, but we should be able to abstract it away and build on top of it. Eventually we'd hope we can get across our core message - deploy your code to the cloud as easy as running locally - without ever mentioning containers, docker, and more. Perhaps we can do that now, we just to update our message to get that across.

For now we're thinking of targeting client-side JS developers as an initial niche and going deep with that while we figure out our tech and message. but yes, the core message is the same - a really simple way to write some code and get it hosted in the cloud as simply as possible (and yes, with a free tier also). It can, and should, be simpler.
Antipodes Map – Tunnel to the other side of the world
Really nice interior. Now they need it padded, the LCDs must be square and the on-board computer must sound like Douglas Rain. Maybe he's still available for the job. And the spacesuits need to be more colorful.
Wow - thanks so much for going through all the links and getting an example working - on a phone no less!! :) very impressive! Hmm, machineless, now that is interesting - I imagine with phone processors such a thing will become, if not already is, possible.

Yes! I wish there was a way to really define and lock-down exactly what communication/serialisation primitives are required to aid communication between systems. Though I imagine you are right in that we've come quite far with common practices.

Haha - yes the Barrister docs can be a bit confusing - we are getting around to writing a simpler version of them with common examples and use-cases. We really like the schema itself as it does map onto JSON semantics quite nicely.

1) Yep, the messaging format could def be simpler! We just felt that as we're starting out it would be better to stick with standards, even if, as you say, they are nascent. This reduces the amount of things we have to do but also we hope that people much smarter than have thought about the issues involved! Hopefully the client-side bindings will hide most but if needed it's nice to now you can drop down to the JSON format.

2) Hmm, JSON by example, this is super interesting!! I fully understand where you are coming from and it seems so much simpler than JSON-Schema (I was never a fan) Using values as types is quite elegant, and reminds me of some of the type-level programming stuff in the functional circles.

The use of multiple entries in a JSON object seems like a nice way to express sum types - something we are really keen to add to the Barrister IDL (you can extend from an object but I believe there is only a single tree). As you note, although this valid JSON, it may require a custom parser to extract. I'd love to hear more about this technique tho, has it been used elsewhere or is there any further documentation?

3) Primitives - yes, it'd certainly be possible to specify other primitives by encoding them in the JSON string value. Could be risky, as you suggest, when you start looking at regexes and so on - I've not been the biggest fan of defining these as types in the past. Also, how would one go about defining a user-defined type at the equivalent level of a primitive? Super interesting tho, if you have any more thoughts on this I'd love to read them.
Well done, as a front end developer I find this tremendously useful. Could you go even deeper and describe various components of some of the services? What is a bucket and what is an instance? etc. Thanks
Interesting point about the adjective, it's the same here. So the only difference seems to be when referring to a pile of bricks.
This doesn't make sense. Just because a symbol could potentially be in use does not mean that not having it is a violation of free speech. Where is the symbol with a guy standing on a table mooning his boss? Sure, someone could make that, but thinking that the absence of this symbol creates a "huge free flow of speech rights issue" is ludicrous.
A skeptic, presented with a super-natural explanation for natural events, which makes tons of falsifiable (and falsified!) claims, stops being skeptical, and asserts the theory is false.
That's a nice justification for their inclusion, but I don't really see that as the common actual use case. More often it seems that you'll get arrays where normally a join table would be used (e.g. tags for a blog post, authors for a book).
Yes, we've been very happy with Barrister so far, in that it provides a simple syntax for RPC definitions that looks very similar to Java so is not hard to learn. And yes, keeping it similar to standard function/object calls lowers the cognitive load.

Hmm, yep recursion not supported atm, although we are thinking of extending the basic system shortly - there are a lot of other features we'd like to add - true sum types, a dynamic operator, and more.

Python annotations are nice, and a lot of users have asked for a way to annotate RPC functions in their code. Doing this all in a cross-language way will be hard and so we're thinking of keeping the external definition in the meantime.

--

Thanks so much for your advice. We're certainly looking at past attempts, and the research in transferring data is vast - I think it boils down to a trade-off between expression and usability - and for now JSON seems to have found pretty good sweet spot. Perhaps with just a simple schema layer on top that will be suitable for most use-cases. I imagine Thrift, ProtoBufs, etc will always beat it on speed, XML (+XML Schema) on expressibility, etc.

For us, as you have guessed, we are just trying to make it as easy as possible for the majority of users – particularly web and mobile developers. This does also mean we're trying to stay language agnostic and find a type subset that works across most languages - JSON primitives let us get some of the way there.

Thank you so much for all your advice - it's been so helpful and we're really happy you took the time out to try it all and record your thoughts. Would love to chat further - please feel free to drop me an email at HNusername @stackhut.com.
My take away isn't that scientists should be atheists, but people shouldn't be illogical bigots
Spitball some calculations?

You can start with just a few EC2 instances, so conceivably, you could everything on those you'd do with a VPS.

Maybe you decide that managing a database is taking too much of your time, so now you're looking at RDS. It's more expensive, but, it manages just about everything for you. Maybe you make the decision to switch to RDS Now you turn down that EC2 instance running your database.

Maybe now you're thinking that RabbitMQ is too much of a pain to manage, so you do the same thing with SQS. Analyze the time/cost savings of switching, and see if it makes sense.

I think for new applications, estimating is a lot harder, right? You have no traffic until someone is interested in your product, but you can sort of spitball. There's a bunch of free load testing services out there to let you roughly simulate N concurrent users, and open-source projects to simulate those users yourself.

Ultimately, and maybe someone has an idea how to do this: I don't think you can ever plan beforehand. You could be optimistic, and assume your app is going to explode, and that you'll need 8 web servers and redundant load balancers and DB with a read replica... but that's just what it seems like, optimistic. I think the closest you can get is spitballing -- assuming maybe you'll get 100 concurrent users or something -- and making sure you can handle that.

Separately, there's the whole issue of trying to make smart decisions ahead of time with your infrastructure, but similarly, this can be really hard to do.
Suicide by cop is a thing and if you aggressively go after officers it is safe to say you may have a mental illness.
Good, in that case we're half way there, just need to have more guidance towards 'belief over truth' on the religious side.
What's even sadder to me is the idea that a universal pictorial language is subject to moralizing. The idea is facilitating communication, not just that which is judged by you to be positive.
Whoa pedantry.

It's fine the way it is.
Weird. Lived here all my life, only time I've ever heard it is in "look at those wacky Yanks" conversations. South coast/London here. Maybe it's regional?
The Apollo guidance computer: Software (2002)
I would say it's because non-deterministic things aren't testable, which make them fall out of the bounds of scientific investigation.

Obviously that's not really true, but it adds a certain level of discomfort to to science.