skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Devil's advocate:

It makes the law is trying to avoid their being a distinction between code that lives on hardware you have in your possession and code that lives on a company server.

For instance you might be indignant that you can't look at the code on your proprietary device, but you aren't indignant that you can't look at the code that runs Google's search engine.

So without laws to "equal the playing field" in a sense - server side service companies get a distinct advantage as they're able to have trade secrets - while companies that distribute code are kinda screwed.

Even with the current legal environment companies STILL try to push processing into their own server controlled space (see Siri, Cortana, most cloud services)
I find myself in this group as well: I don't think I ever used more than 3 "serious" apps in my phone. The alarm clock is one of them.
> Does not the inefficiency also lead to a lessening of cleanliness?

All depends on what we're measuring. In the case of VW, it's the NOx limits that they were cheating on. In order to reduce NOx, you can run a richer air/fuel mixture, which consumes more fuel and is thus inefficient.

If you're instead talking about C02, then you're generally right. Efficiency and cleanliness are aligned.

And my original comment could probably be rephrased as, "fast, clean, efficient, reliable, cheap: pick any three". But that doesn't have zing to it :-)
Indeed, vivoactive owner here.

By the way, Pebble says the time round is "7.5mm thin and weighing just 28 grams". Doesn't define if the weight measurement includes the strap or not.
The vivoactive is 8.0 mm thin, 18g without strap, 38g with strap. So at least the "lightest" claim is probably not accurate.
What about mixing things you like with things you don't like? For example, you have to build a web app. So you start implementing a little framework (things you like) and then use it to finish the project. That way it takes more time but you enjoy it. I found out over the years, taking into account all my good, mediocre and bad results, that I did my best work when I enjoyed it, as silly as it sounds. It doesn't matter that I waste 50% of the time if I get the job done and enjoy it. The alternative is to do it even slower and disgusted.

I think procrastination is a kind of anxiety. We enjoy the creative parts and fear the complexities of debugging that monster when it's 99% done. We need to switch back to enjoyment to get in the flow. That means doing things you like, instead of things you should do, but we can be smart and try to combine the two things.

Another example: I had to work on an old script that was really ugly and messy. I took a day to refactor the old codebase, clean it up, just so I don't see it as a scary monster any more. Then I was much more likely to work on it.
Getting started with Erlang
It's predicted by the market for vinyl and cassette, not by magical thinking about books - a decline, then a rebound. The actual information content is correctly priced to approach zero. The leftover value goes to people who want something premium in their collection, people buying from a local store based on their recommendations, etc. The creators no longer solely derive monetary benefit from product sales, instead using a mix of crowdfunding, performance, and derivative license deals, as well as premium product.

The new world of media isn't ideal, but it offers a lot more flexibility than the old one. You'll be able to get free information, while traditionalists will retain their outlet.
"Stifling innovation"? I doubt this is the case. It is actually possible to run data centres in multiple countries, in fact.

Privacy is more important, anyway.
That's incorrect. You wouldn't be alive today without medicine; the fact that it was provided by a socialized system is almost certainly irrelevant. There exist other, better and fairer mechanisms to provide healthcare, especially to those in genuine need.

Edited: to put it another way, imagine if you lived in a country with socialized car mechanics. You could easily make the claim that the only thing keeping you on the road was your good comrades at State Autoworks ...
Of course you can implement any shared/consistent memory transaction on top of shards -- after all, the CPU implements shared memory on top of message-passing in a shared-nothing architecture, too. It's just that then you end up implementing that abstraction yourself. If you need it, someone has to implement it, and if you need it at the machine level, it's better to rely on its hardware implementation than re-implement the same thing in software. Naive implementations end up creating much more contention (i.e. slow communications) than a sophisticated use of hardware concurrency (i.e. communication) instructions.

My point is that if you're providing a shared-memory abstraction to your user (like arbitrary transactions) -- even at a very high level -- then your architecture isn't "shared-nothing", period. Somewhere in your stack there's an implementation of a shared-memory abstraction. And if you decide to call anything that doesn't use shared memory at CPU/OS level "shared nothing", then that's an arbitrary and rather senseless distinction, because even at the CPU/OS level, shared memory is implemented on top of message-passing. So the cost of a shared abstraction is incurred when it's provided to the user, and is completely independent of how it's implemented. The only way to avoid it is to restrict the programming model and not provide the abstraction. If doing that is fine for the user -- great, but there's no way to have this abstraction without paying for it.

And JNI is better now[1] (I've used JNR to implement FUSE filesystems in pure Java). JNR will serve as the basis for "JNI 2.0" -- Project Panama[2]. And thanks!

[1]: https://github.com/jnr/jnr-ffi

[2]: http://openjdk.java.net/projects/panama/
This. Is there any study about this approach? That's exactly what I do, and it seems to work. Unfortunately it's har to apply for strictly personal projects
https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=javascript%20express...
Drug Price Gouger's Address, Phone Number Leaked
Is it a good idea to use AWS through a prepaid virtual card to avoid such cases? I'm planning to set a up a personal site and I could afford the site going down instead of paying $1000. The guy got refund though, but I would rather not going through this hassle.
The title of the article does not represent correctly the size of the issue. It's not just tech companies, it's every company leveraging Safe Harbor agreement, which potentially covers almost every US-based company with EU subsidiaries.
Maybe GPS or whether the rear (non-powered) wheels are spinning.
Then every "device" you have connected with every other person's device might need its own public address.

And all of sudden, 640 kilobytes is not enough.
I develop safety critical software for railway applications. We have to follow some ISO norms that contain some sensible rules. For example, code reviews are mandatory, we need to have 100% test coverage, the person who writes the tests must be different from the person who writes the code etc. This leads to reasonably good code.

It also makes some things a lot more difficult. For example the compiler must be certified by a government authority. This means we're stuck with a compiler nobody ever heard of that contains known (and unknown) bugs that can't be fixed because that would mean losing the certification.

I assume the car industry has a similar set of rules and the problem is not a lack of rules, but a lack of enforcement.
GadgetBridge is the only reason I haven't canceled my Pebble Time Steel order. Hopefully I'll have time to help out with the project once my watch arrives.
Install KDE Plasma 5.2 Alongside Unity in Ubuntu 14.04
Why Your ECommerce Website Needs Live Chat?
CodeFights thinks competitive programming could become a spectators sport
Let’s Play War: Could war games replace the real thing?
You mean for Unix phones (a la Ubuntu Phone)? Or you want to tether it to your desktop/laptop? Either way the Gadgetbridge source should provide a good starting point if no existing software is available.
Well... even tough they wouldn't be able to charge the money to your card, you would still owe them.
I think this is what people are citing as an ideal scenario (where possible).
Multiple reasons why as a keen reader (a whale to the print publishing industry) I don't use ebooks.

- DRM: When I pay for a book I want it on any of my devices my whole life and I don't want to have to strip some crappy DRM first.

- price: I can't justify how much more ebooks cost.

- battery life: I get bored having to keep my existing devices charged I don't need another one to keep charged.

- First sale: one has the right to lend physical books to friends and family, to me this social aspect is part of the reading experience.

- Tracking: I like that I can buy a book for cash and no one counts how many pages I read and when I read it. Books are partly about intellectual freedom and tracking is the enemy of intellectual freedom.

- Difficult to keep my place: For technical books I can look stuff up in books I know based upon rough location very quickly. E-reader devicies (in my opinion) need more skeumorphism.
It is hard, especially when it's a side project you're doing for yourself because it's not easy to get others excited about it.
JSON Data Parsing in Android
Survey results on how are product managers and marketers using web analytics
Sorry, but that looks like Patreon...
You are assuming hardware registers were available via memory mapped address. Many machines used only IO ports. Where are the C features for that?

Pascal was originally used for teaching it doesn't count. The first time it was used for writing an OS, was with the Object Pascal dialect for the Mac OS.

What counts were Algol 60, Algol 68, Algol W, PL/I, PL/M, Mesa among many others.

As for the statement of only C being usable without Assembly, check the B5000 from the Burroughs Corporation, developed in 1961.

EDIT: where => were
VW set aside 6.5 billion EUR provisions for the recall.

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/09/22/vw-scandal-germanys-reputatio...
I'm OK with it. What do you want to know?
When the trajectory assistance detects that the front wheel spins at 60mph whereas the back wheels are fixed, of course the code puts itself in a special condition. Same goes if the wheel meets no resistance to acceleration. It's either surfing on butter or in a garage.
I'm totally with you. JS is such a bad language, might get better in the future with ES<X> but I guess not. It has many quick hacks (in the bad sense), admitted by it's author.

Interesting pattern I see lately is industry pundits on the CIO side advocate Javascript for inhouse tooling. I guess they have not much experience with programming languages.

With JS making inroads into CIO territory, we'll see a much higher usage in the future. And a much larger fallout with tons of unmaintainable legacy code.

It's like the times when everything needed Java, like Oracle added Java into their DBs for stored procedures. I guess Oracle will add JS too (or have they already?).
> it's a fuck-ton

Or zero. (But it's definitely not one.) Personally I find the zero-worlds view to be the most intuitively satisfying:

http://www.flownet.com/ron/QM.pdf (Or the movie version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc)

David Mermin's Ithaca interpretation is essentially the same thing:

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9609013

The slogan is that "we are correlations without correlata".
Honestly, I believe if you're given a physical device in your hands and pay for it, you should have the right to figure out how it works.

The problem of everyone uploading code to the cloud to prevent this (which is not applicable to cars firmware anyway) is different, and a valid way to protect your IP. I don't particularly care this makes code move into the cloud. But the packets sent to your device, which may affect your device, your health, well-being directly, you should be able to read and modify -- same as the local code. By forcing black boxes upon us we don't have a minimal control, understanding, or prediction of what our own devices can do to ourselves. It's insane.
Yes, but I was asking about Pebble Time because of the wording "continuing".
Looking at it holistically, it seems pretty obvious that something like this would happen eventually.

Look at the history. There have always been concerted efforts to game the standards as much as possible. In Europe where the standards are laxer there have been lots of dirty tricks employed for a long time. For example, you use a special test car for the emissions testing. One that has an engine lubricated by extraordinarily expensive, specialized lubricants. One that uses over inflated, slick tires. And so on. Taking every inch possible. Transitioning from that sort of behavior of playing chicken with the standards to outright subverting them is not nearly as drastic a change in behavior as going from purely lawfully abiding by the strict letter of the standards to deciding to smash them to pieces the next day.

Not to mention that the fact that automakers have been gaming the system by inches for so long and getting away with it almost certainly led to a widespread belief that automakers could get away with much, much more, as well as perhaps taking the standards bodies less seriously.

Once they began down that road, they probably didn't realize how severely the actual emissions would differ from the "fooling the test" mode to normal driving mode. And as they tuned the performance of the vehicle the divergence would simply grow to the limit of the system, which turned out to be enormous (up to 40x). I highly doubt that anyone at any stage was fully aware, until perhaps very late in the process, that the divergence was so large. But by then they were committed. Many poor decisions often result from such incremental processes.
The point of books is to leverage the reputation into high paying consulting gigs. Same with conference speaking.
I honestly prefer it that way. Looks better and more classic compared to for example Moto 360 IMO.
Yeah... so it seems like Linux containers can be sufficiently hardened?
I have an unusual procrastination tackling method inspired from yoga. It involves stimulating the prefrontal cortex (the area of the brain behind the forehead). The role of the PFC is to counter emotions and work out rational solutions to unusual (novel) situations. When it is stimulated I feel like all my work inhibitions are gone.

The technique is simple: with my eyes close, I orient my inner sight (including my eyeballs) to look at the middle of my forehead and then just sense any sensation that appears in that spot. It feels like a kind of pressure or energy building up in the forehead.

The eye trick is good for focusing my attention there. It takes 10 minutes to get my PFC into gear, then I can work like a robot for a whole day.

This spot in the middle of the forehead is called Ajna Chakra and in yoga is considered the "command and control" center. When it is stimulated, it allows for better emotional control.
I can understand the appeal, marketing Javascript to CIO/CTO is much easier than marketing Lua today.

(Which obviously is sad as in my humble opionion for various reasons Lua is the better embedded language. I hoped it could become a widely adopted standard, we had great success with Lua in Redis in the past).
I love meteor and can wait for galaxy! atmosphere is awesome, so I can only expect something amazing.

The react integrate is pretty cool too I just did a trello clone to learn more about react https://github.com/hipstersmoothie/react-meteor-trello

Now I just need a new project to use react with!
30mW 650nm Red Line Laser Alignment
> There aren’t many who understand the Internet like Chris.

> (...) I am talking about the social architecture of

> the Internet.

I think i'm not the only one interested in how Chris understands the internet. Maybe he should write a book.
> We have to follow some ISO norms that contain some sensible rules. For example, code reviews are mandatory, we need to have 100% test coverage, the person who writes the tests must be different from the person who writes the code etc.

The exact same thing happens in the car industry.

> I assume the car industry has a similar set of rules and the problem is not a lack of rules, but a lack of enforcement.

Bingo! Right now I'm staring at some ECU code(not safety relevant, thankfully) that looks like it's been written by a monkey, but I'm a new addition to the team, have no authority here yet and we have to ship it like yesterday.

Guess what will happen.

Truth be told, for safety relevant applications, I've seen the code and it's quite good. And the issue in this case is not that the software was badly built, it's that it was built with deceit on their mind.
I asked Arq support if / when it would support B2 and got this reply:

Hi Robert,

I don’t know whether or not Arq will be integrated with B2.

- Stefan
closures as in "first class function values"? Or closures as in scope that follows a function from where it was defined?
You're missing one more on the company side beyond TCO: there's definitely an element of multiplicative productivity from not only avoiding duplication of effort, but getting the stuff everybody does done incredibly well via a collaborative effort amongst those who all share the same problems, such that they can focus on higher value added work. E.g. database, OS, machine learning libraries...

A real life example might be a small town in an emerging country [1] where retailers band together and invest in building a road to the big city nearby. This greatly increases their revenue by bringing in a lot of traffic that wouldn't otherwise have bothered, even if the ROI on the road, if measured purely in terms of money in money directly out, is "negative".

[1] I read about this happening in regions of Iraq. I saw it in person in the state of Maharashtra in India, where Godrej is building roads and power plants in the region around its factories near Pune.
Off-topic, but why are Haskell's function signatures written like this?

function_name :: Param1Type -> Param2Type -> Param3Type -> ReturnType

To me that just makes no sense. There's no way to logically "read" it. The natural way would be "function_name converts a Param1Type into a Param2Type and then ... what?! Is this a chain of functions?"

Why not have something sensible like this?

function_name :: Param1Type, Param2Type, Param3Type -> ReturnType
Perhaps I should clarify: That range isn't general-purpose IP space. And while multicast is useful, there's probably ways to implement it without sacrificing 1/16 of the entire address space.
You're still defining it circularly. How much utility does sky diving give? $200 the first time and $20 the second time, apparently. Why did the skydivers pay $200? Because they got that much or more utility from doing it.
The submissions to the underhanded C contest don't look very poorly written to me.
Picking a metric because it's easy to quantify is like a drunk looking for his keys under the lamp post because there's more light there.
because in haskell functions are curried,

function_name :: param1 -> param2 -> return

is a function that if you only give it param1 it returns a function that takes an argument of param2Type and returns returnType.
This way you can easily compose functions
Earthquake? Silicon Valley will help. Refugee crisis? Not so much
Additionally, it could depend on whether they are using google.com or google.vn.
This is promising: http://swampdragon.net
dockerd -- nope. It's `docker -d`
Are you aware of this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier-grade_NAT

"Critics of carrier-grade NAT argue the following aspects:"

"It makes record keeping for law-enforcement operations more difficult, except if the translation of the addresses is logged."
torch for me. and of course the e-reader.
Consider IBM. They want to flog you hardware and consulting. They need an operating system to sit in the middle of it, and right now, riding the Linux bandwagon is more profitable than AIX so thats why. There's no actual ideology involved, it's pure calculation.
Great insights on alternative financing sources in this report
Not a physicist either, but I think "local realism" is a conjunction of "local" and "realism". Bell inequality experiments show that "local realism" is false, and so we have to reject either "local" or "realism", but we don't necessarily have to reject both.
Because you write functions like this in mathematics as well.

What we usually see is something like this:

f(x) = y

But if you look at it carefully the function f is a mapping of the domain x to the range y (the arrow is f), written like so:

x -> y

Of course, the domain, being a set of all permissible values, is the type. So we write the type instead:

type1 -> type2

Everything in Haskell is a function, and pure functions only ever take ONE parameter. Therefore the commas make no sense. The name in front just aids in naming stuff.

If you have a function that takes 2 parameters, they'd have to be curried. How would you represent curried functions?

f::type1 -> type2 -> type3

To make it more concrete, let's look at add instead of f.

So we can define a function like this (let's use Python for its readability):

def add(a, b): return a + b

But remember, in haskell, functions are pure. Meaning they only map one input to one output. In order to make this happen, we need to split the function up into parts that only take one parameter.

Let's start with the plus operator as a function (it is one in Haskell just made into an infix). To think about it, it'd be something like this:

plus(a)(b)

Where plus(a) is defined as:

def plus(a): return plusA

Hence the first part would become a curried function like so, which takes another parameter:

plusA(b)

Where plusA() is defined as such:

def plusA(b): return b + a # a is a constant

So if you look at it from the types it was being transformed from:

plus() # takes a Real, returns plusA.

plusA(___) # takes a Real, returns a Real. written as (Real -> Real)

So if you put it together, the function signature for plus() is:

plus() takes Real -

plus :: Real->

plus() returns plusA (which is Real->Real) -

plus :: Real-> (Real-> Real)

Or in other words we can write it as such

add :: Real -> Real -> Real
Americans and Western Europeans focus on the history of America and Western Europe. I'm not surprised at all.
Spy fears threaten US data sharing with EU
ShinySDR – Software-defined radio receiver app with a web-based UI and plugins
> For many consumers, Google essentially is the internet,

That's their problem.
I realized he had no idea what he was talking about when the author called Node a framework. It's a runtime. That's more than just a pedantic difference.
It would probably be the only book in existence to correctly explain what 'Anonymous' is. I'd read it.
Throttling, request routing, security workarounds, integrating multiple applications under a single nginx reverse proxy, ...

If you do ops or interact with an ops team, I'm sure you can find many more examples.
Better push notifications needed as messaging becomes fundamental to mobile apps
Although any moron can self-publish a book, the serious ones stand apart with professional book covers and blurbs, marketing, and multiple novels.

The ones who "trend" well often get picked up by traditional publishers or movie studios (as was the case with Andy Weir's "The Martian.")

The traditional publishing industry consists of trend-chasers, not trend-setters.

So yes, the self-publishing world is full of raw sewage, but there are some diamonds and gems in that sewage--and they usually look shiny, with endorsements and professional covers.
To be honest, exposing host's /var/run/libvirtd.sock to a guest VM will have exactly the same consistencies.
Those magical constants would likely be specific to the engine though. I also think you're overstating how importnat these trade secrets are. If VW really had magical algorithms to reduce emmission they wouldn't have had to cheat.