skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Ummmmm, having been one of the original architects for GE on their CAD and PTC systems in the late 90's I have to disagree. The technology is pretty solid, the implementations even by competing companies are reasonable as well. The issues are political and liability, but frankly the claims are totally exaggerated on the cost, this is more about limiting future liability and changing a very ingrained old school culture. PTC helps to provide positive proof of negligence (or the lack thereof), which as you can imagine can generate potential liability for a railroad. PTC is not overriding of a train operator in all circumstances, hence the liability. And the train operator and general culture is VERY rooted, even more so than the automotive industry, which means moving these long timers off the ball takes way more than some government deadline.

As for not sharing costs, that is complete crap. The railroads are not developing the technology anyway, companies like GE and others have developed it and are continuing to develop it. Even interoperation between competing implementations is mostly moot. The railroads have to pay for the software, maintenance and on-going updates, but the development is coming from outside the railroads so that political BS claim is just that.

Not saying everything is perfect, but it frustrates me that after 15 years this isn't done and implemented, its 10 years beyond when I thought at least 2 of the biggest railroads would have it deployed at least in some form. Hell in 1998 GE had forms of it in test at 2 of the largest railroads in the country.
Thing is, freight trains are a far better use of the track than passenger trains: the system is ideal for slow-moving bulk cargo that doesn't care if it has to sit on a siding for a week, not to mention that it's a much less damaging way of moving heavy material around than trucks. Passengers, meanwhile, want to go specific places at specific times, and that just does not coexist well with freight. Better for passengers to travel by air, private car, dedicated high-speed rail, and other systems focused on the job.
Imagine that you're smart, young, and faced with an awkward choice. You can live your life in an impoverished place, ekeing out a living producing mud in Elbonia. Or you can steal money from people who, from your perspective, have TONS. People who aren't even near you anyway, and who according to local thought are evil and oppressing you. Plus, that's a lot of money to you.

Now couple it with the gang aspect.
Oh, interesting. Also, poison or biological agents.
Perhaps they are being served up by PS/2's...
Their entire argument is a cognitive dissonance with the facts.

Even with non-violent drug use, rates are similar across all races yet blacks are measurably discriminated against in searches, arrests, and sentencing.
I think that the whole space may suffer from the, "If they are so good at making money from money, why do they need to solicit my money? Why don't they take their own money and use their own strategies to make their own profits?" problem.

Maybe I am wrong. Is there a 0-cost Robo Advisor (that actually produces real returns) in existence?
I invite you to be more civil. As for .NET MVC, the fact remains that the default routing system is fairly mediocre, for no particular reason, while many other frameworks offer more flexibility with one system. Now, if it's good for you, by all means, keep using it.
How to Process Content Overload
Mexico supreme court rules ban on marijuana use unconstitutional
Very interesting write up. It looks like most of the apps are sharing with Google on Android and Apple on iOS. I would be interested in seeing the graphic without them.

Also would be interested in knowing if all of the connections to Facebook are using Facebook to log in, or sharing in secret. Or pinterest connections to twitter, which are likely for sharing purposes.

I am far more interested in which ones are sharing with the unknown 3rd parties.
>Weren't aliases proposed?

...sounds like a good candidate for an SRFI...
I think the explanation is pretty simple.

There is a (very likely) crackpot idea floating around that has gotten a lot of press. This crackpot idea, if it is what is claimed, would have immense value in NASA's primary field of operations and expertise. And this idea has gone through a couple rounds of experimentation where thrust has been measured, but is likely experimental error.

Here is the important part: NASA is investigating this because they are being pressured to investigate this. And they have succeeded in proving the existence of a few sources of experimental error. But not all of them, because there is still some measurement of thrust. And as long as the testing is relatively cheap and the pressure to validate is relatively strong, they will continue to test it. It is entirely likely that not a single physicist at NASA believes this thing works, but they are still getting paid to prove their intuitions as correct.

And I don't buy that testing this is a waste of money. It has already done some good: they've been able to identify and control for sources of measurement error of thrust at the near zero bounded end of thrust magnitude. That experience and capability is still valuable in designing and testing new ion thrusters.
Guinness Is Going Vegan
I wonder how guile-elisp would fare on benchmarks...
I don't see how a supranational government is any better than a national one, though. If anything, they're more remote and intransigent, and pretty much have a revolving door between the two. I trust neither when it comes to this issue.
Avoid Humans: Your temporary respite from the masses
Thanks for the explanation. Congrats on the fundraise!
I'm generally opposed to torture, but I make an exception for people who coin neologisms like 'fraudiest.' No thanks for that assault on literacy.
Yeah, pretty much this

No IBM "product" can work without some 10 consultants meddling with it and/or huge amounts of red tape
Why wouldn't (or shouldn't) one be able to make it run standalone?
Stashboard: open-source status page for cloud services and APIs
Thanks, that worked.
I'm with gnarbarian. This doesn't seem credible to me and I'd want something substantial.
Can't we learn a lot of wonderfully useful things about experimental technique while studying phenomena that are more likely to be of interest in their own right?

Because in this case, the subject matter of the experiments is explicitly in contradiction with some very well confirmed physical principles, and well within the range of conditions where those prior tests have been done. (This isn't like quantum mechanics supplanting Newtonian physics at molecular scales, this is like someone designing a funny-shaped inclined plane and claiming that Newtonian physics might not apply because nobody has measured accelerations on that shape of ramp before.)
SRFI-927 I guess
>Since you mentioned airplanes, making sure redundancy reduces rather than increasing risk is a big issue. For example, single-engine airplanes are prone to crashes due to engine failure. The solution is to add a second engine and you're much safer, right?

that is the same thinking that has been in the aviation for the last 100 years. Why 2? Put 8 electrical ones driven from 2 generators from 2 ICE/turbines. In such approach no component have to be of an "air-worthy" level of reliability (and associated cost/price), just a regular "consumer auto" reliability level would easily do.

>But if it fails by, say, dumping all your blood into your chest cavity, then adding redundant hearts increases your chance of death, rather than decreasing it.

that is a good point. I'd say that abnormal flow can be detected, and with 2 hearts the option of shutting down the one where abnormal flow is detected is really a feasible option, while it is definitely not in the case of just one heart.
Not open source but this is an excellent free drawing tool that lets you draw very good looking state charts:
http://www-03.ibm.com/software/products/en/ratimode
Just in time for people realizing that holding onto lots of state is actually a code-design smell and that functional paradigms should be used as much as possible instead!
> Look, it's the guy's own personal twitter account. He can say what he wants. And he's put his own work into an open source project, voluntarily.

He's promoting Opal on that same Twitter account, though. A parallel: It's like saying he can bully someone outside of class, and that as long as he sits nice and quiet in class, the school shouldn't do anything about it.

Quite frankly, I think the Internet got to his head.

> Despite what many seem to think, there is no "universally agreed" morals and views. So if you want to oust people you disagree with, don't be surprised when others oust you.

True, but his statement was a soft-core version of hate speech.

> Or better yet, we'd all be better off if we all just learn to work peaceably with people we disagree with.

He didn't simply disagree, though. He's being outright offensive about it: "not accepting reality is the problem here," and "anyway it's months that in Italy school after school sneaks genderism lessons in without parents consent. Not cool," yes okay, let's not educate people, because that's well cool, innit blad.
I saw a kind of disturbing statistic recently... white males are only 31% of the population, but they're 66% of police officers, and 95% of prosecutors. Not to mention 85% of elected officials.

That's a lot of concentration of power.
Happy to see crowdfunding being used for great causes. Brilliant stuff!
U.K. Government Proposes More, Not Less, Electronic Snooping
That's an interesting perspective and observation. I've always found lock-in to be a bit scary, and I've heard this echoed by a number of colleagues & companies. No one can deny the usefulness of tools provided by hosting providers, namely AWS; however, to me, architecting a system in such a way where you are literally unable to jump ship when the need arises (compliance, cost, etc) is unacceptable. With hybrid / multi cloud more of a reality with the existence of tools like Docker (and others), there needs to exist sets of tools capable of handling such variability. I digress, this really belongs in an entirely different thread.
President Obama and Marilynne Robinson: A Conversation Pt. II
I'd like to take the time to thank you for answering in good faith - rather than assuming I had asked in bad faith. So, thank you.

Unfortunately I'm not able, in good faith, to take a stand for or against your argument. Consider this conceding the argument, but not being entirely convinced (allow me to explain).

Initially, I would like to reject it. Because as a libertarian-leaning trans, I fall under both examples you cited. Concern over potential abuse of PII, government overreach, and sexual identity (the concern over gender identity is similar in that regards). But I also fall under the "white, male" label.

However, I do understand the argument that a more targeted individual may be more capable of identifying potential issues. I feel this is contextual and often results in too many "maybes", "potentials", and "possibilities" to be entirely convincing.

"They maybe might have the potential to maybe see a possibility for something that might have the potential to maybe have the possibility of being abused." is not something I find convincing. Though it is technically correct and I have to concede that.
Publer
It sounds a lot like google protocol buffers, or one of the many java serialization frameworks. This "jam" thing may be better integrated into the urbit architecture, but without any portability/interop with other systems/languages.
Awesome news, congrats team. For any Watsi folks here, do you all have any plans for more development-type work for the long term, or are you more focused on providing immediate relief as you are now?
Based off that, you ought to be willing to spend $1.543 billion to save those 245 lives. The railroads are claiming that they've spent billions attempting to prepare this technology.

If they're accurately representing the costs (big if!), this doesn't sound like it meets the government's own cost-benefit standards, so I'd like to hear more about the rationale behind requiring this technology.
Thanks for the feedback!

After I started building Poetry Every Day, I ran across that very site. I continued building because I think they attract a different type of reader than I am envisioning would be interested in Poetry Every Day. The focus of Poetry Every Day is providing poetry that has stood the test of time. The focus of the American Academy of Poets is to showcase its (living) members' work, interspersed with some classic poetry. That's not at all a bad thing, but I think there are people who are interested in classic poetry that are not interested in contemporary poetry. Those are the people I created Poetry Every Day for.
While Microsoft is still debating whether it should disable SHA-1 in mid-2016, early 2017 or at the end of 2017, Google is already moving to require all certificates to support Certificate Transparency, to vastly increase the trust we can put in Certificate Authorities. As per their article they are still only "considering" removing SHA-1 support by mid-2016.

Microsoft needs to stop wasting time with obvious stuff (like deprecating SHA-1, RC4, MD5, and all that), and be a little more aggressive with securing their products as well.
Umm... it isn't. Removing a barrier with a discriminatory effect would remove it for all.
So, I figure this is as good a place to any to ask: I'm not totally clear on how AMP is supposed to work. From what I can tell, it "speeds up the web" by being a subset of HTML that forbids JavaScript, but there's nothing stopping publishers from just not putting any JS on their page right now. The reason they don't is that they need the ad revenue, and I don't see what AMP is doing to fix that. Is Google paying publishers to host AMP versions of their pages?
A small number of us refuse to work under the current conditions offered by American employers. We have money and investments to do the things that we want to do and not put up with the BS in the corporate world.
> Feminists in tech have been staging attempted “honey traps” to frame prominent male software developers for sexual assault, according to explosive claims on the blog of Eric S. Raymond, a pioneer of the open source movement

Pioneer of the open source movement. Also an outspoken racist and known bigot, who is not shy at all about painting feminism as some sort of extremist tendency that needs to be stopped.

There's no way to ignore his obvious agenda when making this accusation.
Matthew 5:18
For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+5&versi...
That's something I don't get about US technologist. Everyone says they want progress, but then there's always so many reasons why it shouldn't happen.

A related example would be which of these two road that are better suited for self-driving cars or similar technologies:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US33SEOH.JPG

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MMLNorr1.JPG
"It irritates me that people think their time is so valuable they are unwilling to do life's most basic tasks, and to properly manage their lives so they aren't constantly in instant-need all the time and reaching for their phones to provide them a solution to their own sloth."

HOW DARE SOMEONE USE THEIR TIME DIFFERENTLY THAN ME
Not all of it, BNSF & UP only operate the services with their names in the lines, Metra operates the remainder of the services.
You are correct, not every car needs to be modified. Generally engines are the primary modification, as is the CAD systems that must accept extra data and pass it to the trains. Things like hotbox detectors that can count trains axels, determine direction plus the switches and track occupation signals need to also be sent from the CAD (which already receives them in controlled territory) to the locomotive itself.

As a point, PTC works in both dark territory and controlled territory, because it focuses on the train itself (but it isn't as reliable in dark territory). Yes in controlled territory it has greater information but it doesn't require every switch to be modified. Even back in the late 90's every controlled switch reported back its status to CAD extremely quickly and CAD could control the switches remotely. Yes, dark territory is different, but PTC had some benefits even in dark territory. It was the long term goal to have near zero dark territory where a switch, siding or other similar factor would be able to cause a collision.

And just as a point, even when a train leaves one CAD controlled territory (say Union Pacific territory) and enters another (say ran by BNSF) the CAD operators hand off control, much like air traffic control. So the issue of interoperability is minimal as it already is in place in at least a fairly common form. Not saying it isn't without fault or couldn't be better, but the world doesn't have to change overnight, just keep making progress on each part making it better and better.
It's relevant because OP find this rant unacceptable.

It's a judgement based on his own culture, not Linus'. In many cultures, mine included, such rants are ok.
Now you have even more things that can go wrong. You can't just pile on extra equipment, declare it to achieve reliability through redundancy, and have it be so. Even if you do achieve reliability, what does it cost? Your solution would probably be unbelievably expensive and inefficient, since you've added a huge amount of weight and drag.

The thinking from the last 100 years of aviation has resulted in by far the safest means of transportation ever devised, with a fatality rate so low that it can no longer be reliably measured. Calling something "the same thinking" as that is high praise! If you think you have a better way to do it, it's certainly possible, but you have an extremely high bar to clear.
That's just about how it works with Cap'n Proto, https://capnproto.org/

No idea about if you could do it with mmap from the network, that'd be an OS thing and I suspect not possible to do from a streaming protocol like TCP in most places.
No I'm not. Pike worked at developing the C language, especially on Plan 9. Plan 9 C has a few unique features added by Pike when Ritchie was his team leader at the labs and Stroustrup was there developing C++. Pike is not a fan of C++, E.g. "object oriented design the is Roman Numerals of computing"
The Ninja manual introduction explains some of that.
http://martine.github.io/ninja/manual.html

The short answer is that Ninja is conceptually similar to Make, but it dropped slow features to speed things up.
Evaluating the Usability of a Modern PGP Client [pdf]
What I don't see here is what I'm most interested in: how effective are robo-advisors? What percentage of the time do they beat the market, if ever? Am I better off simply investing in S&P 500 or a Vanguard target fund? Or does FutureAdvisor or Betterment or Wealthfront provide some unseen benefit?

FWIW, I've seen stats that suggest that 85% of advisors (robo or otherwise) perform below the S&P 500, which frankly is not a great sign for that industry.
Coincidentally, the Economist published two articles on Bitcoin two days ago, one of which was featured on the front page print edition (which I just got in the mail today).

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21677198-technology-be...

http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21677228-technology-b...
Learn to code advanced CSS and HTML
The government is the one that should apply the laws to protect consumers and fair competence. Once something fishy has been detected they have to act.

https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/bureaus-offices/bureau-consume...
I understand that my tone seemed dismissive, and I apologize. I was dashing off the comment and didn't give it much consideration after writing it, and I probably would have rewritten the last sentence.

In any case, you answered my (assumed) question, so thank you!
I'll just leave my tweeted photo from ElixirConf right here.

https://twitter.com/pmarreck/status/650430959951593472

That was a live survey done during the session. The long yellow bar, in case it's hard to read, represented Ruby.

It's not that hard to see why: https://speakerdeck.com/mosic/elixir-at-evercam?slide=6
Exactly why Google moved to an "aggressive" timeline to deprecate SHA-1. Schneier predicted the cost of SHA-1 collisions years ago and said criminal groups will be able to create collisions by 2018 - which means you needed to start pushing for killing SHA-1 support years earlier.

But when Google did that everyone jumped on them for "trying to control the Internet" or something (because obviously trying to make the Internet adopt stronger security is a power tripping thing). I hope at least now they've seen the error in their ways.

Oh, and it turns out Schneier was actually too optimistic about the costs of SHA-1 collissions - by about an order of magnitude:

> 211 * 28.4 = 219.4 ~ $700K by 2015

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/10/when_will_we_...
This was a wonderful post. If I may be permitted a TL;DR (although it's almost a shame not to read your extended analogy): although no scientist wants to engage with crackpots him- or herself, everyone should want to see what happens when a scientist does engage (scientifically) with crackpots.
CoinPatrol – 24/7 Real Bitcoin Price Alerts
It's the only port on the Macbook.
I did not know such thing is possible. very cool! thx for pointing it out! :)

but still..some rhetorical questions: Is KMS based on this concept? Is it's implementation open sourced? Is it verified to run unchanged in the instance I pay? Who is verifying it? Who is paying the one verifying it? Can I meet him / her to drink a coffee and build trust between us?

pls, do not misunderstand me. I got more trust in the amazon techs than in my own ability to admin a complex linux system on bare metal. But while all that is great progress toward security we still need to make a leap to find a solution. don't we?
Definitely, it was something I looked into trying a while back. A chrome extension that would give different weighted amazon reviews based on a couple models, in line on Amazon's site, could be useful. I was also trying to figure out a way to do text mining of book samples for better book recommendations, based on my preferences, but getting the samples out of Amazon was a pain.
Facebook is building artificial intelligence to finally beat humans at Go
> How many times a day do you want to say "percent equals" or "tilde ampersand,"

Zero if I can help it. Even if I'm talking about code aloud, I normally do so semantically, saying what the code is doing, because people are more than capable of reading the code itself. (Same premise as commenting code.) If I'm actually reading the exact symbols aloud, a rare occurrence, then I'll say things like "mod equal" or "mod eq", "tilde and", etc. If I'm reading "#include <stdio.h>", I'll say "include standard I O", not "pound include space angle s t d i o dot h angle newline".

> Worse, you may not spend a lot of time reading code out loud, but when you read your brain still thinks the sounds.

No, it absolutely doesn't. Learning to avoid reading-aloud internally is one of the first things taught in speed-reading of prose, and the same concept applies to programming.

> Of course, you're free to prefer keywords to digraphs. But sometimes I worry that there's a reason the 787 looks just like the 707 [1], and it's not at all about airplanes...

That may be, but what you've done here is on par with APL saying "you need a completely non-standard keyboard and character set to program this language", but worse.

If you want to introduce new names for symbols, that's a separate exercise from trying to make a new programming language; the latter is quite hard enough.