skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Another option is to apply at Galvanize.com or other accelerated 3-month engineering programs. This will give you the credentials you need quickly.

I know Galvanize has some funded scholarships. I am sure other bootcamp-style programs will also have this.

(Full disclosure: I work at Galvanize.)
The Fukushima accident was preventable
I did so not because I'm a libertarian or an anarcho-capitalist to be more precise. I did so because you're flat out not adding anything to the conversation, as well as seemingly dismissing valid points because you dislike the political ideology that the publication is associated with.

Either the ideas/points are valid, backed-up by evidence, etc. Or they're not.
Famo.us pivots from JavaScript engine to micro-app CMS
Fines should be much higher to have any effect, but it will not really change the game. I feel little empathy for other parties who have lost money because of this, the whole system seems to have become an arms race between mathematicians/programmers, where the most audacious one (who does not get caught) wins. There is no economic value in any of this.

I think trading in derivatives as a whole is too cheap: reading the article it seems trading against yourself is cheap enough to use it to manipulate others. Taxing derivative trading (I say casino tax but any small percentage would work) would stop all this nonsense trading instantly, only leaving trading that is actually valuable to someone.
strlcpy and c99/POSIX-2001 didn't really become widely used until the early 2000s. I disagree that the difference in "vintage" between early-2000s and today's software makes the real difference - what really matters is the quality. And it's not like this project doesn't use DVCS or static analysis. It even uses a modern alternative build system!

It's very hard to quantify or even make specific rules about quality. These rules are just the basics. The strlcpy rule in particular is simplified, there are times when you need to use strncpy: when the source string might not be terminated (but openbsd guys say they use memcpy in that case ... anyway, it takes some thought).

2004 vintage C code is the sweet spot for portable systems software right now IMHO. But the real difference in quality can't be identified by any simplistic rule or attribute.
I know an engineer who is amazing at building beautiful products. Would probably be his dream job.

He doesn't; likely because being a designer isn't highly appreciated (with the monies).
Training Deep Net on 14M Images by Using a Single Machine
Are you saying that being on the hook for 60% less in interest and fees isn't an improvement? Is a millionaire still stuck in a poverty trap because it's theoretically possible for them to get hit with costs that exceed their savings? What you're describing sounds like a huge improvement, not "still stuck."

Regarding your second paragraph, no, I wouldn't say that. I'm not actually passing any judgment here. I don't think that buying iPhones and fancy TVs is a particularly wise choice for poor people, but I also don't really fault them for it. I'm merely giving an example of something which could help with poverty but which the government can't provide. A decent chunk of poverty comes from poor financial choices, and that's just an observation without implying any judgment towards the affected people.
Why wonder when you can test?

% python -mtimeit '[x for x in xrange(1000)]'
10000 loops, best of 3: 70.2 usec per loop
% python -mtimeit 'for x in xrange(1000): pass'
10000 loops, best of 3: 29 usec per loop

% python -mtimeit '[x for x in xrange(100000)]'
100 loops, best of 3: 7.03 msec per loop
% python -mtimeit 'for x in xrange(100000): pass'
100 loops, best of 3: 2.5 msec per loop
From the article: "The new processes differ only in that one is considered the parent process: in the parent, control returns directly from the fork, while in the child, control is passed to location label"
Orson Scott Card made a similar point in one of the intros to Ender's Game.
I think this is where learning from meditation from an experienced teacher compared to an app would probably be more likely produce a beneficial result.

It's hard to say without actually talking to this person about his experience, but it seems like he fell into a trap that many fall into (include me) about meditation in that the goal or ideal state is to clear your mind of thoughts. Forcing your mind not to follow your thoughts and interpreting the presence of extraneous thoughts as negative will not be pleasurable or helpful.

Our minds wander all of the time, and if you tell yourself doing that is bad, you're going to be feeling bad a lot of the time.

If you are trying to meditate and you notice your mind wander, you let the thoughts you have go, without any penalty. If you notice your mind hasn't wandered, you don't give yourself kudos, but you just let that thought go too. The core of meditation is the just the practice of that action.

If you're just beginning meditation, you're taking a shower, and you often spend your shower time brainstorming, you should definitely not be penalizing yourself for that. Just because your meditation app told you that the end goal is to spend your life fully in the moment does not mean you can just decide to do that today.

An experienced meditator in that situation might decide that they would be more effective focusing on showering, and then dedicating separate time to brainstorming. OR, they might decide that "brainstorming in the shower" as a whole is very beneficial experience and decide they are doing it just right for them.
California Lawn Watering Economics
Even if they're not "prewritten", they have generally been prepared. For example, if I give a talk, I'll at least have made (mental or written) notes on what points I want to make and in what order.

When I'm in a natural conversation, the list of points I want to make is made up on the fly and is usually quite fluid (changes back and forth as I or the other people talk as a function of what is being said).

That is, talks, even if not already "written", are not the same as natural conversation at all.

I also find that really great impromptu speakers actually do speak more coherently in their natural conversations too. I assume because they're used to pre-editing what they're saying in their heads as they talk.
You can also achieve control over thoughts and emotions without using meditation at all, simply by having an understanding of the detrimental effects of negative emotions on your physical and mental health, and stopping yourself when you identify a situation where you have an emotional response. (I think this is similar to what CBT attempts to do).

In my experience of dealing with depression/anxiety/burnout, having lots of thoughts and ideas isn't the problem. The problem is negative emotional reactions, excessive responsibilities (which itself likely boils down to a negative emotional response), and not feeling in control.

In fact having a racing mind can be helpful in dealing with stress in some ways, by engaging in flow activities.
> "Neither in their site nor in what documentation they have does it appear to say how can you disable data collection"

From the homepage...

"the user is required to commit to using the Turris router as the main internet gateway for his network for a specified period of time, and not to intervene in collection of data."

Doesn't look like they will give you the option to disable data collection.
If teachers cite long hours, they are lying.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2008/03/art4full.pdf

Kind of makes you wonder how truthful their harder to verify claims are.

Here in DC, hitting the right numbers gets a bonus which is close to 50% of your salary – or nothing if you're slightly low...

You've found a bad bonus structure. Making the bonus linear in value-add would solve this problem. Again - not a problem with testing at all.

Or maybe it's not such a bad bonus structure - I'm told that cliffs are a great way to motivate salespeople. I guess salespeople are better at managing their emotions than teachers?
Ask HN: Field of expertise and employability of older programmers?
The issue of employment for older programmers stirs a lot of interest here and elsewhere. I see a lot of both "I'm over 30 and can't get a job." and "I'm over 50 and am never without work."

One aspect that I haven't seen addressed and which might clarify things is exactly what fields are those in which older programmers are/n't getting work. The securely employed older guys I know tend to be in embedded systems, doing machine control and signal processing. The past-it 30-somethings tend to do web-related stuff.

What have you observed?
Depends on the tone that you want to set.
For a blog etc I think conversationalist tone is fine. Even fast design docs can benefit from a conversationalist tone. Trying to write a big technical design doc w/ that tone wouldn't fit though IMO so you have to evaluate case by case.
In fairness, Neil Oliver talks like that all the time. If I were having a chat with him over a pint and he described someone as a "mercurial Spaniard", I wouldn't bat an eyelid.
I was guilty as well, but since I began to see 'saving something to consume it later' as basically stealing time from my future self for trivial reading of no real consequence (let's be honest, we could unplug from HN, twitter & co. for weeks and not miss out on anything vital) I became much much much more conservative in what I save.

And if you really don't even have time to skim an article at the very moment you found it why are you browsing anyway?
Shallow diagnosis of the real problem: at this level, the GOP operates as a set of almost fiefdoms of competing consultants who are only in it for themselves. There's no party wide effort to develop something like Obama's pre-election micro-targeting system. Romney's pathetic ORCA is a good example of an IT disaster, but it wasn't even playing most of the game the Obama's system(s) were.

Heck, the 2009-2010 Republican National Committee's chairman Michael Steele inexplicably terminated the famed party-wide Get Out The Vote (GOTV) system, resulting in more than a few needless losses in the 2010 election and his subsequent immediate removal from the position.

I can go into lots more detail, but right now, at the top, national level, the party is well-neigh hopeless, e.g. see the donor-riot which has that part of the party in vicious opposition with the base.

I'm not sure what it'll take to fix this, besides, you know, leadership, but actually finding talent once one or more useful projects get started won't I think be a great problem. It's, well, even realizing the need for those projects by the powers that be in the first place that has to come first, and we could well see a third party replace the Republican Party like they replaced the Whigs for that to happen/by the time that happens.
Most of the comments, here, are taking the statement too literally. What he means is to write sentences in a way you would in normal conversation and not try to be a writer of linguistic elocution. Don't use abbreviations, long words we may not know, pretending to be Hemingway.

Too many pretend to be Hemingway when they should write like Brian Kernighan at least.
Then it is not yet time for a startup. Why do you want to start up? What is the underlying motivation for it?
I don't know much about SQL, but are you sure you need multiple joins for that?

I'd do something like this (psuedocode) on the table with the tags:

SELECT foreign-id, COUNT(*)
FROM Tags
WHERE tag IN ('foo', 'bar', 'baz')
GROUP BY foreign-id
HAVING COUNT(*) = 3

It does seem rather hacky though.
Smokey, this is not math. This is bowling. There are rules.
When it comes to criminal law, the standard is "knew or should have known". At the very least, Sony and possibly YouTube are liable for the results of a flawed algorithm causing them to break the law. It's been in (mis)use for many years now, and it's obvious it's a horribly inaccurate method of determining copyright violations. Without human intervention to investigate and ensure each and every claim is legitimate, YouTube and the copyright claimants are committing fraud and perjury on a massive scale.
Turns out someone in the comments to that article had a better idea of what was going on:

"He isn't trying to push the price with his big orders so much as get a certain type of participant to join his level whose behavior he can exploit. He's exploiting two things about market-makers. 1. They look at book imbalance to decide where to bid and offer. By balancing out the book or skewing it one way, he incites them to join and can sweep them. 2. Once they trade contracts on one side of the market, their risk management logic creates price impact or is predictable."

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-10-21/regulators-...
Abstruse - Big in the early 1800s according to the Google Ngram Viewer. https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?year_start=1800&year_e...
The original speech title (from the URL) was "Law enforcement and the communities we serve: bending the lines toward safety and justice." I don't know if this is either misleading or linkbait, but I know it's not good, and you're not using it.

"Defense of mass incarceration" seems like a neutral summary of the content of the speech. The author's main point, from the content: 'to speak of “mass incarceration” I believe is confusing, and it distorts an important reality.' But the literal words "mass incarceration" seem simply factual, although "mass" might be more neutral as "large-scale."

Replacing this summary of the content with the author and location, as above, replaces it with an irrelevant, content-free title, which couldn't be better designed to go unread. How many HN posts are labeled "Article by Walter Mossberg in the Wall Street Journal?"

It seems better to simply describe the link as inappropriate. But many pieces on this subject appear on HN...
Exactly, formality can be part of the message, and sometimes less is a bore.

There is certainly a place for more formal language at times, if only to communicate intent and add a bit of pepper to the writing. For example Will Self would not be Will Self without using ten words where one would do, nor would Poe or Henry James (who I suspect spoke much as he wrote).

I think what pg is objecting to here though is probably people putting on airs by attempting a more formal register than they are comfortable with, and thus coming across as a little stilted and a little fake and obscuring their meaning rather than communicating it. This is a particular problem in art criticism, where postmodern art critics adopt a certain stilted, formal, and impenetrable language as a sort of shibboleth; the height of this style is probably someone like Camille Paglia, who gives the impression of saying much about Art without saying much at all (IMO).

Of course you can also do the same by trying to be informal without being intimately acquainted with the particular usage you're trying to emulate, and it depends who you're talking to. What is appropriate (both in speech and in writing) depends on context more than we like to admit.
>> Why they do this, I have no idea.

> I'm not saying there aren't any valid reasons for doing it.

> I'm just saying the there's a "meta-lesson" there that has to be corrected.

And I'm saying that your meta-lesson is not a good idea as it will tend to teach underconfidence. The real world does not always let you off with a "I don't know"; you may not know to some high degree of certainty whether a cancer treatment is a good idea, but nevertheless you must decide whether or not to do it.
Why Uber could be worth $70B
A guide on how to take a good selfie that others will like:

be female
be blonde
be attractive

Incidentally, Christian Rudder did a really good "study" on the dating site pictures a few years ago:

http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/dont-be-ugly-by-accident/
The single greatest gift you can bestow upon your children is reasoned curiosity. And by reasoned I mean allowing all questions to surface, and to reason about how to understand or answer the question in a practical way.

But as Mz says you must let them do things. We did set a rule that our girls could not own a pocket knife until they were at least 10 years of age and had developed the fine motor skills needed to keep it under control. Once they owned a knife of their own we talked about the "blood ball" which was their name for the concept of not whittling or cutting where someone was within reach of your outstretched arm. That would keep you from stabbing somone next to you if your blade slipped. And we talked about direction (never cut toward your body) Since we camped a lot there were plenty of opportunities to whittle sticks into funny shapes, and knives are generally useful in a camp site.

We also had a tradition of always eating together (which can be hard in a startup where you have to explain that you're leaving at 5PM so that you can have dinner with your family and that you'll be online later) The dinner table rules were any question was allowed, we owned a used set of the World Book Encyclopedia to answer questions.

When driving on the road we encouraged questions about "What do you think that is?" and ways we might be able to guess the purpose of what ever it was we were looking at. Ways to validate our understanding or test our hypothesis.

It means answering "Why?" questions all the way down, without angst and frustration but with discovery and learning.

We took apart things, we fixed things, we built things, and we imagined things. It gives you the freedom to ask a question like "what if we pitched a baseball at the speed of light?" If you think that is a silly question for your kid to ask, then you don't have the right attitude about fostering curiosity.
Sorry, but... why do you ask?
I can understand asking for suggestions on what tool to use, maybe, but why would you ask to HN if you _should_ do this or not?

You might find it is not worth your time after a week (or two, or one month, or one year). When this happens, you quit.
Before this happens, you will find out by yourself if you are getting anything positive from this.

It could improve your writing, or just give you a record to go back later to re-evaluate or enrich your original ideas.
It could just be fun.

It only needs a bit of dedication and time. No money, and considerably less time than other activities (like learning to play an instrument or studying a foreign language)... given that the investment is so small, why don't you simply try and then decide by yourself?
No way. Most literature is terribly structured for the workaday communications people actually need to do in real life.
It reminds me of how, if you ask why something is so, and then keep asking "why?" to every answer you get, you tend to end up asking philosophical questions.
Here's where I think pg is coming from:

1) you are going to be writing about something you know

2) you are going to be writing to "people like you"

3) you are going to be read by, maybe as a product of 1 and 2, people at your order of expertise.

Given these qualifications, it's always best to write in a conversational tone using words you would normally use.

With that in mind, going through your points:

(i) most people don't use metaphors that are predominantly seen in print in an conversation.

(ii) Tricky. I think this depends on the audience. Sometimes, used well, this leads to prose that flows better. I think a better rule would be: use the word that fits with the tone and content.

(iii) Agreed!

(iv) Yup. Few people use passive voice in conversations. Maybe the same ones who disregard (i).

(v) Again, this depends on your audience. Obviously, Orwell (or any mainstream-ish writer), would have a lower common denominator than your audience.

(vi) haha.

But, yeah, I like pg's suggestion because it is .. well.. more succinct: easier to remember 1 guideline than vi rules :)
> We like the type-safety without the verbosity and JVM tuning of Java.

I've never worked on large-scale services, but I'm a fan of articles and talks on scaling. Is there any reason why I often read about JVM tuning, but never come across V8 tuning, or Go runtime tuning or CPython tuning?
or .net runtime tuning.
Problem is, sometimes you're just sick of the song, not that you hate it and don't want t hear songs like it. Pandora has a "don't play this for a month" option, but even that's too short. It's also not available on in the iOS app (or at least it wasn't before I cancelled my Pandora subscription earlier this year). They just don't seem to get that people don't want to listen to the same music over and over again.

I think the bottom line is that Pandora needed to evolve, but they've stubbornly stayed the same, just like their stations.
It's a long read, here's a link to an article that summarizes some of the study's findings.

http://news.usc.edu/86362/fukushima-disaster-was-preventable...
Seth Godin said something really similar, and I've drawn on it during periods of writer's block many times:

>No one ever gets talker's block. No one wakes up in the morning, discovers he has nothing to say and sits quietly, for days or weeks, until the muse hits, until the moment is right, until all the craziness in his life has died down.

Why then, is writer's block endemic?

The reason we don't get talker's block is that we're in the habit of talking without a lot of concern for whether or not our inane blather will come back to haunt us. Talk is cheap. Talk is ephemeral. Talk can be easily denied.
Your amygdala might make the world seem scary
I probably am not the ideal one to answer but I run the public web at a university and have two developers working for me. I also lead a larger scrum team for all public web work. As a developer I am responsible for most of the backend code. Data extractors from 3rd party apps and sites, middleware transport, transforms, database code and such. Most everything is written in Java with one-off programs in Python. Some bash stuff as well.

I've been at this job 9 years and am now 62 years old. I code maybe, on average, 25% of my time. Richmond, VA

Edit: And I intend to keep doing this till I am at least 65 years old and probably longer.
I agree, simplifying would be great. You do realize, however, that a large part of the legal profession is to intentionally write broadly, imprecisely, and flexibly to avoid traps. Other kinds of legal writing are intentionally precise in some clauses so as to add complexity to deliberately avoid immediate comprehension.
Most likely explanation: Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon.

Slightly less likely: modern Haskell distills some ideas that have proven to be beneficial to software projects regardless of the language(s) they choose. As long as the number of HN users grows, and more and more of them realize the benefits of the FP paradigms championed by Haskell, there will be more upvotes for related submissions to the front page.
Quality is many faceted. One aspect that's relevant here is predictability and Uber chooses to meet their prescribed level of predictability by controlling the phone OS/version.
CERN+HAS+BEEN+LYING+-+YouTube
I like Pandora because it's simple. Ironically it's Apple that has the reputation for making simple things, but Apple Music is a maze. It has this heart button as well as star ratings. What's the difference? What effect do they have? Why do I still have this "iTunes Store" and this "Music" on my phone? I can't buy songs through the "Music"?

With Pandora I hit thumbs up if I like it, thumbs down if I don't. Simple.