skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The code in github (https://raw.githubusercontent.com/greyspots/envelope/master/...) has the Polymer copyright notice at the top, but other bits appear to be custom.
No, our custom elements does sound similar to Polymer but there are two main differences: we don't use ShadowDOM (polymer does) and our elements are for creating Postgres backed web apps.

Greyspots has two parts: the front end and the Envelope Server. The front end is comprised of custom HTML tags and a JS library (We use X-tags to implement custom tags). The Envelope Server is a middleware replacement that exposes a fixed API from the front end to a Postgres database.
In the case of CS100.1X, you had to submit the program to an online grader. However, the assignment contains test cases; if all your test cases pass, then you'd most likely pass the online grader.

However, if you changed the variable names, like in the article, the test cases would fail...unless you changed them in the test cases itself. In which case, the test cases would definitely fail in the online grader.

I took the Andrew Ng Coursera class which had an online grader that had test cases as well, but mostly it was just defining functions with specified input and outputs, so you're free to use whatever style guide you want in between. (CS100.1X does have a few of those, and they are easily the most difficult part of the assignment since it requires Python shenanigans)
Morals are a personal thing, not innate to a corporation but rather your subjective filter for the world. What you might consider moral, others can find opposite.

Regarding ethics: There is nothing ethically flawed about what Google is doing. They aren't selling arms or abusing animals so where does this line get crossed for you? They are in it for profit and can provide many of these services for free through advertising. Necessarily this requires an exchange of your general data profile for all the utility of their tools. If you pay them directly, then the privacy rules are different (as it works with many such corporations).

And you might not like to hear this perspective - but many really don't care. People share data about themselves at an exponential rate because the experience of sharing and the utility of the companies outweighs other concerns.

But you are perfectly free to go do your own thing. There's no secret Google police out to get you. You are not revealing some big conspiracy here, it's a well-understood exchange and many are just fine with it and many like you aren't. And it's all ok.
Chlorine – Dead-simple framework for OpenCL
Freelance libertarian bloggers aren't generally considered a good source.

A quote from your man:

"I'm one of those classical liberal types with the libertarian mindset that sees the carbon-cutters as, in general, authoritarian, super-statist, quasi-socialist conspirators intent on bossing people around and interfering with their lives and liberties. Having confessed, I'm now going to prove that it's true, that it's not just my belief but a true reflection of the world"
Yes and no - it's a tradeoff abstraction. The borrow checker is a whole-language design directive, and its strength comes from giving up something in other areas - in this case, having to use generics everywhere. A language, as I said, is mostly made up of these intentional tradeoffs to try to find an appropriate balance.

You can still express the abstractions of Rust through another language, though it may take writing another compiler on top to actually do so - they just won't hold the same utility, because the utility of this abstraction is mainly tied to the "zero-cost" implementation method, not to whether it has expressive powers.
MPesa API
Some reading material for those interesting in the current state of cryonics development and research, starting with an overview and moving on. Modern cryopreservation aims for vitrification, not freezing.

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

http://alcor.org/sciencefaq.htm

http://www.brainpreservation.org/competitors/

The evidence assembled to date provides a reasonable expectation that the fine structure of the brain responsible for storing the data of the mind is preserved by vitrification, based on scanning electron microscopy and current best understanding of where that data is encoded.

There are a few organizations that span the intersection between organ preservation and cryonics, such as 21st Century Medicine. The focus there is on reversible vitrification, such as the paper linked below in which a rabbit kidney is vitrified, restored, and implanted.

http://www.21cm.com/

http://www.21cm.com/pdfs/12FahyORG5-3%5b1%5d.pdf

There is a sizable fraction of the futurist community who approach cryonics with the pattern identity view of being satisfied with a copy of their mind running in emulation at some point in the future, the original vitrified substrate then discarded. Not very satisfying from the continuity identity perspective; a copy of you is not you. I'd be stipulating a restoration of the original tissues; probably a harder problem, but one that can be understood and foreseen. Advanced molecular nanotechnology and complete control over cellular biology would be requirements, for example, but that looks like being feasible later this century, just like the process of scanning and emulation.

The madness of it all is that cryonics is very plausible and could be far more cost-effective at volume. Yet no-one cares. Just like the problems encountered in trying to persuade anyone that working on rejuvenation biotechnology for indefinite healthy life spans is a good plan, in the matter of cryonics the population world is content to slow-walk off the cliff of aging and death without doing anything about it. There is no status quo so terrible that it won't be embraced and defended. Billions are lost to oblivion in an age in which the technological capabilities exist to prevent the overwhelming majority of those deaths. And no-one cares. The future will look on us as suicidal, ignorant barbarians, and rightly so.
The goal isn't diversity, though. The goal is meritocracy, with diversity only desirable insofar as it enables meritocracy.
>For someone new to the codebase who knows nothing of the giant abstraction, which do you think is easier to grasp: 10 lines of code that only make sense if you know the abstraction, or 20 or 100 lines of code that can be understood on their own?

I'll take those 10 lines of code.

We've only managed to build powerful systems because of ever increasing abstractions.

See Alan Kay's DSL research for example: http://www.vpri.org/pdf/tr2007008_steps.pdf

It's not like every system with abstractions has to be done the Java way. Functional programming, be it Haskell or Lisp etc, has tons of abstrations too, and they don't get in the way.

I'd say Java's issue wasn't abstractions per se, but uneeded abstractions, BS boilerplate and needless ceremony. Which Golang also suffers from.

Besides, you don't just dispose of the abstractions and get the same, but now straightforward, code. You get rid of them and get 10x the code (the 100 lines compared to 10 he mentions), which you have to keep track of and keep in your head, only now you don't have high level abstractions to help you in that, you have to do it manually.

(And of course Go vs Python is not a good comparison, as Python's lack of types make it difficult to reason about large programs quickly. How about Go vs C#/Swift/D etc? I'd take Swift any day of the week.
Black Mirror (on Netflix) has a powerful interpretation on the implications of digital reanimation in Season 2 Episode 1, "Be Right Back", although the digital representation of the deceased human is created by an AI that reads all of the person's digital information (social media, emails, videos, etc) and emulates them.
I think it's wise for everybody to allocate some funds for high-risk crazy investment in smaller companies, just 5-10%, as long as it's not a straightout scam that is. First, you learn a lot from your research and interactions. Second it is diversification. Third, you can put the money towards something you care about so even if you lose them it's not a big deal such as VR, cancer cure, some cool boat technology, new food, whatever.
What about medicine if you say death is good why postpone it by eating well, taking medicine and being safe?

I don't see why we humans should die I think if all science put their efforts together (as done in world wars) we could extend human life quite a bit.

The only concern I have is the difference in culture for example imagine a 20 year old versus a person 200 years old. Even today the generation gap between 20 and 40 is big and causes problems when interacting even just music alone as one example.
Ask HN: Is there an API to get what is trending at this time?
Google Trends does a good job and there is a roundabout way of programmatically getting that data. Twitter has trends but needs location to work. I was wondering if there are any APIs that can surface this information? Ideally looking at a 24 hour day, useful to have trends based on keywords, facebook trends and twitter hashtags
"In real-world code, you don’t actually end up casting interface{} to something else that often"

I have to disagree here, and I've had trouble finding any serious argument that this is an OK thing to have to do. When we accept the benefit of not allowing users to create generic abstractions, we also have to recognize the very real cost of not allowing users to create generic abstractions.

Software/technology trends go in cycles. Several years from now, a generation of Golang programmers will be preaching the benefits of DRY, having learned from the painful mistakes of maintaining the large and complex Golang codebases yet to come without the benefit of creating appropriate abstractions, just as Golang was partially an answer to the painful mistakes of maintaining large and complex dynamic codebases. And so the pendulum will swing again.
> 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.

incremental-dom still solves the declarative DOM problem. You express exactly what DOM you want in a template that compiles to incremental-dom calls. It's just a more efficient way to do what React does, skipping the intermediate representation. Why does it matter if the incremental-dom calls have side effects, if the end result (of an updated DOM) is the same?

If you use the DOM directly as you suggest, you end up writing a lot of manual state transitions, and probably bugs from not covering and testing absolutely every transition. incremental-dom doesn't have that problem because it's updating the whole tree for you, just like React.
How do you determine what the correct level of funding is for the project?

We can solve problems beyond pharmaceuticals with a command economy style approach if we can come up with a good methodology for resource allocation.
Ah, yes. How dare they have fun.
And yet you take your medicines, go to see the doctor, look both ways before crossing the street. Why flee from the thought of doing more than that, of removing all of the other causes of death?
After looking at the Steam video Seeders doesn't look very marketable. The main character is stiff, doesn't change. It's almost off putting. The art style in general is sloppy and generic.

Quagmire from 1993 http://macintoshgarden.org/games/quagmire looks better in a video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIy-Ssv3l6s because there's some bounce in the robot and enemies seem more alive.

That said I'm sure there are plenty of games with exceptional art styles that aren't selling well either. It's not just over-saturated by less than professional art, gameplay or whatever, but by good art.
> When does 'easy' stop and the real work begin?

Envelope includes the Greyspots framework which is a collection of web components that talk to PostgreSQL through the Envelope server. These web components give you all the standard widgets that you would use to put together a normal database app. For example, all the components that MS Access provides, Greyspots framework provides. Many app developers will never need to write their own widgets, but for those who do need something unique, you can copy the closest Greyspots widget (its just a Javascript web component) and hack it into whatever you need. Then you just use it in your HTML via <my-component>. More info on Web Components: webcomponents.org
>...production ready and available today...

Envelope has been in production for six years. Apps in production: Foreign stocking location (barcode inventory app), Jmine (Export of a Goldmine database published to the web), all our internal apps (Address Book, Calendar, Wiki), JType (export of Suntype published to the web, Suntype is a DOS-based newspaper accounting app). Workflow Products, LLC has used Envelope for all its customers for years now.

> (SQL and HTML) Is that all? Again, is this just for a simple CRUD app?

I've worked with MS Access for many years and never wrote my own widget. Envelope is designed for these types of apps. You can build simple apps with no Javascript. You can easily build very full featured apps with a little Javascript but you don't need to write any widgets or extend the platform to do so.
Eventually one can:

echo "address=/.google.com/127.0.0.1" >> /etc/dnsmasq.conf

(along with google's other domains)

Note this cant be done with standard /etc/hosts blocking since the hosts file does not support blocking subdomains unless they are explicit.
Something something just-world fallacy.

http://www.spring.org.uk/2012/06/the-belief-in-a-just-world-...

> expensive

With the millions of dollars from diversity initiatives, I'm sure someone could pull it off.

Also, I think you're missing the entire "classism" thing. I'm Polish, and just because I'm white doesn't mean I have the world handed to me. Kind of the opposite actually, everything that I've ever gotten in life was thanks to fighting the system (whether it was my work or my parents' work).

I could say I deserve something, but honestly I don't really think I do. The world is not a fair place.
As the name suggests, MOSS (Measure of Software Similarity) and other tools employed for plagiarism detection work by detecting logical similarity. Obfuscated code is considered identical to the original.

See: http://theory.stanford.edu/~aiken/publications/papers/sigmod...
>doesn't let you do overly-clever things to save a few lines of typing

So that's what we're calling the lack of HoFs these days? It's really sad to hear that anyone considers map/fold/filter are "overly-clever".

Tim Sweeney (Epic) says[1]:

"“For” loops in Unreal:

40% are functional comprehensions

50% are functional folds"

I hardly see how changing those loops into a construct that more accurately represents them is overly-clever.

1: http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~dpw/popl/06/Tim-POPL.ppt
Also, how about:

- Donald Knuth (TeX, METAFONT); even more surprising here given that he's mentioned in the article a few times on other accounts; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Knuth

- Fabrice Bellard (QEMU, FFmpeg, & other) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabrice_Bellard
While the old iOS look was getting a little cheesy by the time iOS 6 rolled around, it was indeed very clear for the most part. Wooden bookshelves in iBooks might not have had much function, but the shading and glassy look on controls certainly did.

As an example, coming from the angle of an individual who'd never approached a smartphone in his life, the function of the iOS 6 picker/spinner was immediately obvious. The shading and glassy highlights made it look like a real spinner and practically begged the user to interact with it. Distinct section separators made it perfectly clear that each section can be spun separately.

Compare this to the picker in iOS 7 and up. Not only is there no shading or highlights to suggest how to interact with it, but now there are no separators — even if one presumes that it can be spun, it looks like the whole thing would spin. To make things worse, oddly skeumorphic 3D perspective has been added into the mix, presumably to try to suggest spinnability, but without partner cues it's just confusing. With this design, so much is left unknown until the user attempts interaction.

Reference screenshot:
http://blog.ittybittyapps.com/images/posts/lifting-the-lid-o...

I personally feel that Apple struck a nice balance between design modesty, usability, and aesthetics with Mavericks desktop, but that's gone with Yosemite. Interestingly though, El Capitan adds in subtle hints of shading and depth in a few places. I wonder if we'll see things start to tilt back in the other direction with OS X 10.12 and iOS 10.
No ethical company in the US would do what you're what you're suggesting. In order to sponsor an international candidate (in the US), you MUST pay the prevailing wage for the role in that area, and even more importantly, you must prove that you can't find a candidate to fill the role withoug sponsorship.
Pretty easy to do `type MyGc<T> = Gc<RefCell<T>>`.

Even better, put trait objects everywhere. Now we're Java. Go sit in a corner and think about what you've done :P

When designing rust-gc with mystor at one point I joked about writing a syntax extension that converts everything in a crate to a GCd, RefCelld, trait object, so that Java programmers have no problem converting.
Did the Chinese lose a submarine recently?
Shriram Krishnamurthi says about this topic:

> Racket is Racket. It's its own language.
Brutally honest American commercial
"Modern C++ can be safe by making use of:"

Thanks for the summary and references. Will be helpful if another honest language comparison is done of C++ against safe, systems languages. Or C++ developers against others on realistic, example programs.

"The problems faced by Turbo Pascal and other languages to keep up with the OS vendors SDKs teached me to only invest on first class languages for production code."

It makes sense. My solution was a auto-generating that from a better language and wrapping their libraries. That does take some serious tooling support, though.
There's a real world company that offers this service:

https://www.eter9.com/
> If you don't need the abstractions for the code you're writing, don't use them!

So much this. Better to have the tools for when they're needed than to swing a hammer at everything regardless of whether it's a nail.
'err' is sitting there in the return value and the compiler will force you to either use it or explicitly steamroll it. The difference between C bounds checking and Go error checking is that you can't forget to check an error in Go.
That license is on X-tags. We use X-tags as a shim to get Web Components to work on many browsers.

We use no code from the Polymer project. At the time we were evaluating we decided to go straight web components with X-Tags as a shim. I haven't kept up with Polymer but I don't think it offers database integration so its really not comparable to Greyspots in any way. Different goals entirely.
Because I have no return values to hold on to. Everything in the render function is a side effect. There's no way to collect the intermediate dom representation in data structures and combine it together later. There is no room for asynchronicity from what I have seen. What if I'd like to combine some reactive streams to send me the desired dom structure as state changes over time, piece them together and send them to the renderer?
Use current global spendings as a baseline and adjust from time to time. If you have more money available than researchers to pay you can decrease spendings, if you desire faster progress throw more money at it. Besides the added complexity of a global scale undertaking I see no reasons that it is fundamentally harder to do then say planning the budget for road construction and maintenance or other national infrastructure spendings.

EDIT: In the case of drugs we also have a somewhat exceptional situation, we have a pretty good idea of what the demand is and what the benefits of satisfying a specific demand will be.
Woman Endured 8 Days in Psych Ward Because Cops Didn't Believe BMW Was Hers
We are working on it. We didn't anticipate the demand. Give us an hour or so.
Consider the idea that this is a vector into the idea of machines being possibly equally important, or considered even more important than living humans, based on their capacity to accurately represent the continued presence of deceased humans.

That a machine is permitted to occupy and consume resources, that might otherwise be used by actual living people who are also trying to live meaningful lives. Which one wins?
Not sure about you, but I would rather be able to choose when to stop living than have to suffer the terrible disease of aging and its implications (neurodegenerative diseases, for example).
Not very satisfying from the continuity identity perspective; a copy of you is not you.

Neither are you, you you from yesterday or the day before - conscious continuity is illusory. How do you know that your body isn't replaced with a new copy each night (thought experiment)?

restoration of the original tissues...Advanced molecular nanotechnology and complete control over cellular biology

You run into a Ship of Theseus problem with this approach, which gets back to your original qualia problem.

The biological body is not made to last - you'll need to be converted to something more durable if you want an unbroken conscious experience longer than ~100 years.
The only Carnatic music I'm really familiar with is that of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._Shankar

Can anyone familiar with the topic tell me if pieces such as Raga Aberi, Pancha Nadai Pallavi and the pieces on the 'Who's to Know' album are 'authentic' Carnatic classical music?

I've listened to (and enjoyed) some other Carnatic violinists but I find the tone of the more traditional violins a little hard to take - it's very thin and piercing to my ears - whilst Shankar's electric violin and very 'studio recorded' sound is something I find more accessible.

So - I'm curious if the melodic and structural elements in the above pieces are reasonably representative of the carnatic tradition.
Artist Creates ‘Syrian Super Mario’ to Show the Hardship of Being a Refugee
A few random cases including some older guy who spray paints a few building with "no Chinese" and then is charged with a felony and held on $200k bail. Hardly sign of a "racism growing"
Alibaba’s shares could fall much further
Yeah, that's a really cool idea! I'll add an issue.
Top Founders Under 35 to Watch
It's been interesting to watch similar arguments being made of Golang, over and over. From a casual user's perspective, it seems to optimize for (what is to me) the wrong thing, which is readability over maintainability. Without the ability to create abstractions we run the risk of having to re-learn the lessons of the past, about DRY and SRP and all that jazz. While more language features give users more rope to hang themselves with, less language features constrict the ability of larger projects to manage complexity, such as is the case with dynamic languages. For Go, I sense that this will become more obvious over time.

TLDR; Readable code is nice, but maintainable code is better.