skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
For now there is no sync. We haven't historically been focused on SaaS delivery, so that wasn't an issue. It will be in the future as shift more to a hosted model and build our customer portal. But we're not quite there yet.
Football players choose MILF over coeds 3-to-1
"operating in a polled mode instead of relying on interrupts, which avoids kernel context switches and eliminates interrupt handling overhead"

Yeah, that's great if all you're running is a benchmark. As soon as you need to combine this with a network stack, also polling its own devices at fast as it can, it becomes a lot harder to avoid those context switches. If you're running an actual application it becomes even harder. Likewise if you have more devices than you have cores to spin waiting for them.

In an extremely latency-sensitive and resource-rich environment this kind of thing can yield great results, but otherwise it's almost a form of cheating. Yes, that's what I was accused of when I wrote network drivers at Dolphin and again at SiCortex that some people felt polled too much. Oddly enough, users felt that their CPUs should be running their applications, and were more interested in maximum throughput per cycle consumed. Hardware designers don't build interrupt-based interfaces just for fun, and it's worth remembering that Intel makes most of its money from selling CPUs. Think about it.
Thanks for the feedback! Will work on that bug and expanding image upload techniques (google image search is another method I am considering).
Web Scraping – new tool - how does it compare with the traditional tools?
Whoops, I meant to mention that in the blog post. I used Chart.js http://www.chartjs.org/.
"A negative side is that the work is extremely tiresome, and there are pressure problems all the time. Mental health problems are well known in this business."

Is he suggesting this work is the cause of mental health issues? Seems to me almost every techie I know has below average mental health. Chicken-egg problem here.
SSL certificate chain resolver in Golang
Kind of off topic, but: can you elaborate on how you handle the state file for nixops? I really want to use nixops for some smallish server deployments, but I don't want to have to share the state files with team members (or worse, keep track of it on some central machine that becomes a single point of failure). That is the only reason I am sticking to Ansible for the time being.

To anyone else who uses nixops, why does nixops use this state file? Can't they use labels like Ansible to identify deployed machines? Can't you just require the user to provide their own secrets instead of auto-generating a new keypair for each machine?
Nobody Loves Graphite Anymore
Their business model was to drill holes in the ground, pump stuff out, heat it up and separate it into various liquids, then sell them. Sure, they should have just started making solar panels and wind mills. And had they done this 40 years ago, they should have been sued by their shareholders. Oil is still going strong -- they would have lost their pants.
[Hawaii ONSITE] Salesforce / Java Engineer

We're looking for Salesforce and Java developers to work with us here in Hawaii to improve our existing infrastructure, add new features, build the technological foundation of our business.

A typical day for a developer might include working with our sales team to improve their workflow, working with our front-end and backend developers to improve our products, and help build some new infrastructure to take our business to the next level. As part of a small and growing team, you will have a chance to really make a difference.

We're looking for a developer well versed in Salesforce and Apex. Knowledge of Python, Ruby, Go, and JavaScript are a plus.

We are looking for someone to work here at our office. We're located in the great beach town of Kailua, Hawaii, on the island of Oahu.

At Real Geeks we build software tools to help real estate agents do business. We are bringing modern technology to the real estate world. You’ll be working with our team of developers and designers building cool stuff at our headquarters in Kailua, Hawaii.

Please apply by sending your resume to careers@realgeeks.com
Some friends of mine have alpacas to protect their chooks and other animals from foxes. They will just stomp them into the ground.
And there have been at least as many cases of political abuse of the police force, should we also cut down on that just because there is a potential for abuse? Many instutions that are intended to good can be abused or used as political weapons under a totallitarian government, but I think the potential for abuse is much reduced under a more benevolent political system.
Warren gave a self-serving answer that obscured the true tax he and others like him really pay -- including corporate tax, cap gains, etc. The % of the money the govt diverts from his true income is significantly higher than his secretary (or most of us). It's over-simplistic to just look at the income tax rate in our ridiculously complex system.
Huge, all-encompassing all-or-nothing deals like the TPP are not good. They're merely easier to negotiate.

What's the point of post-factum public scrunity if the deal can not be modified at this point? It's just a farce.
>Just like in a topic about whether to vote for a specific tax levy, it's inappropriate to talk about whether property taxes as a whole should be abolished.

Making the argument that a given problem is recurrent is very constructive: consideration of the generic problem can provide arguments for prioritizing your problem as it relates to X. This is especially true when present instances of a problem affect future probability of the same problem occurring.

This is notably the case in law where jurisprudence makes laws progressively more difficult to repeal.
You may be right, though I'd say more in perception than actuality. I'm not sure it actually is cheaper, since the amount saved is minimal and the lost productivity may be very high.

However, in the land of externalized costs, that could be the reason. It's easier to point to the cost savings for cubicles or open offices and say "hey we saved that" than it is to point to the amount of software not written (or even harder to prove, written but lower in quality) and say "hey, we lost that".
> I find the whole idea that you could hold a company which produces petroleum products responsible for climate change ridiculous.

That's not what this is about - the question here is that Exxon might have prevented the public from understanding the health risks from using Exxon's product. That means that they way the population votes, the way the population buys products, has been a directed by the lies of Exxon. We can and we will hold them accountable for those lies and the damage caused.

> Oil is so undeniably important to the economy and indeed livelihood at this point, that the U.S. has salt caverns full of it in case of an emergency.

Oil is only that important because the industry has actively prevented alternatives from being developed. If they had been more forward-thinking, then oil wouldn't be that important and we wouldn't have all our eggs in one basket.

> No one in their right mind expects to wake up and find that an oil company has come to the conclusion that "it's really bad stuff and we're going to exit the market immediately on moral ground" or "start making clean oil".

Well, I certainly do. Are you saying that I'm not in my right mind? Let's be more polite here, please.

> Climate change is a global problem that demands a solution by governments. Oil companies should be exempt from prosecution over climate change. If you're going to say they've profited while the seas are rising, fine, then tax them, not sue them.

They are not being sued because they sold oil. They are being sued because they lied about the known health risks associated with buying their oil.
I'm anxiously awaiting the landing of https://wiki.mozilla.org/Electrolysis for years. That will be a major component of any improvement.
> Most C++ programmers do not fear using references or pointers because of invalidation.

Compared to Rust? I doubt that. Like I said, Rust lets you dance near the line.

This is from experience in various large C++ codebases. I'm not saying people use refcounting a lot, I'm saying it gets used more than Rust.

YMMV though, so it does boil down to a matter of different experiences here. We'll probably have to agree to disagree.

> In fact it often has false positives requiring borrow gymnastics because it is too primitive.

Not really. Aside from non-lexical borrows and a couple other nice-to-have things (but not necessary), the borrow checker is pretty precise for what it tries to prove.

One might argue that the guarantees Rust tries to maintain (one writer or multiple readers for a piece of data) are too primitive. I don't think that's true. Doing a context-sensitive/flow-sensitive analysis might lead to more patterns being allowed but it's hard to scope guarantees when the analysis is interprocedural -- stopping at function boundaries makes sense to me.

> The Rust compiler does not tell you when it's impossible to satisfy your problem using borrows.

It sort of does. If you try to introduce borrows and listen to the suggestions the compiler gives you, and eventually end up nowhere, it's probably not possible to do it that way. It's not perfect, but it's good enough. And it's immune to further changes -- you don't need to design your pointer usage so that it's future-proof; design it however you want, and if a future refactoring introduces a possible use-after-free, fix the compile error.

> And your last line is a complete reversal of your previous attitude: Suddenly you are focusing on theory while ignoring that in practice you can not usually break out `unsafe` to solve your borrow problems.

No, it's not, I'm just pointing out the equivalence. My point was that "The things you can prove statically with the borrow checker are a subset of the things that wont trigger UB in C++." is irrelevant for two reasons -- (a) in practice IMO the things Rust makes you feel safe to do is a superset of what C++ lets you feel safe to do, and (b) if we're going to talk about "all possible things C++ theoretically allows you to do", then you should include unsafe -- you were comparing "safe Rust" with "all C++", which is unfair here, since the entities to be compared for what you're theoretically allowed to do are "all Rust" and "all C++". I focused on a different flaw in your argument, so of course the focus changed. I'm not saying you should use unsafe a lot, I'm saying "what C++ lets you do is equivalent to using unsafe a bit more often in Rust". I don't endorse it, but if you consider "C++ lets you do so many things Rust doesn't" to be a plus point of C++ (I don't), then you should at least be comparing the right things and allowing yourself to use unsafe in Rust too.

> more heavyweight abstractions than necessary

Examples?
Lets just remember the reason for all of this. The unilateral blockade maintained by the USA
Even if somehow tomorrow, all the cars on the road switch to a power source that had nothing to do with petroleum, we would still need loads of oil. Petroleum is a raw material input for many necessary products in our day-to-day lives: plastics, textile fibers, lubricants, medicines, asphalt.
This looks great, thanks for the tip!
You are welcome.

I have written a little about it here https://medium.com/black-n-white/the-problem-with-problems-4...

Perhaps that can provide you with a perspective to think about it.
The guy makes it sound like he's just making whatever the designer tells him, like a robot.

In reality there's a lot of back-and-forth. This is easy, this is hard, this is impossible, we should reorganize this or that, some development path requires more investigation, etc.

If I was a kid watching this I'd conclude it was stressful and subservient.
I generally use the term "Bootstrapped" as a shorthand for product/SAAS business started with limited capital and focusing on growth through their own operating profits.
I'm lazy to a fault, and I cook eggs by cracking them into a bowl of water and nuking it in the microwave until done. No peeling, no cleaning up the pot, much less waiting.
People like to get their money sooner rather than later. 40 years ago it was probably not a big focus for the people running Exxon to potentially get a lot richer 40+ years in the future, but rather being busy getting "rich enough" in the next few years.

Most companies(which are just peoole) doesn't start thinking too far in the future until the curves of those "next few years" point abruptly downwards.
I suppose there are other hydrocarbons to worry about (both naturally occurring from compost, and from leaking gas pipes/old tanks). Not so much because of suffocation (that's why you have the O2 gauge) but from the not blow up/be burned alive part. I suppose it depends a bit where you go exploring - AFAIK old coal mines can be dangerous wrt fires/explosions. It's a good reason to avoid open flame/non ex certified electronics, if you have reason to suspect an explosive atmosphere. Fires can be dangerous just by binding oxygen - in addition to the more obvious danger.

I think the main thing is to realize that enclosed spaces can be really dangerous. Farmers die in grain/grass silos every year. And people die from CO poisoning from using coal as heat-sources indoors, or just from theoretically sound, but flawed fire based heating solutions (eg: paraffin/diesel/oil heaters).
'Twas not just Microsoft.

Back then, "enabled by default" was the rule. I recall Linux distributions of that era also enabling a lot of network-facing stuff by default.

For Microsoft in particular, there's also some path dependence: they began with non-networked (or with local-only networking) desktop operating systems, where the drawbacks of default-enabling many useful services were not as severe.
Just read about occasional discoveries and breakthroughs on the news. I read that Cuba is developing a promising anti-cancer vaccine or something like that a while ago.
> we would still need loads of oil

But this is my point - no, we wouldn't still need loads of oil to continue our day-to-day lives, if these lies by Exxon had not been told. If we had spent the last 40 years going full-speed to develop alternatives then we would not have this problem you pose right now. Cars would be electric, battery factories would be commonplace, solar panels would be everywhere - and we would not be so dependent on oil.
Marco Arment and David Smith: Under the Radar
Well this looks quite nice. Bookmarked for later. Thank you!
If your insurance provider can make money without investing the premiums, then I'd say you're paying too much for premiums.
This is a fair question as, correct me if I'm wrong, but they still make a significant chunk of revenue from the search partner programs. If they were to cause a significant impact in that trackability, I imagine those negotiations would be a lot less favorable for Mozilla.

Pure speculation though.
Also, "The FCC has already said that Section 333 applies to unlicensed spectrum by prohibiting Wi-Fi jamming." http://www.wetmachine.com/tales-of-the-sausage-factory/my-in...
> Climate change is a global problem that demands a solution by governments. Oil companies should be exempt from prosecution over climate change.

Prosecution is part of how the government solves it. Regulating companies is a fundamental lever goverment uses to effect change.
Translatable to plaintext without user provided information is still plaintext.

When a website stores the hash of your password on their servers for you to authenticate against they have no way to recover your plaintext password without brute-forcing the hash. They can verify that the password you sent them is correct but they can't tell you your password.

If, Mint say, encrypts your password on their servers with their own key then they still have the plaintext password because the process is reversible to them.

To do this right, Mint would be given a piece of information, say an OAuth token, which would allow them to authenticate to your bank without them knowing the password you use to log in.
julesrms, Interested in the live coding, but can't seem to find any detailed info on your site. How does your live coding compare to, say, Cling ( https://root.cern.ch/cling ) ?
Of course modern society doesn't need oil at all so they can all just transition to a source powered by their own feeling of self righteousness, regardless of how many die for their folly.
Did she call for utilitarian topics to be banned from academe? Of course not. She argued against what she sees as a trend of them taking precedence over everything else.
Because it can be rejected.
The board and c-suite executives do not give a fuck about where the company is going to be 40 year from now.

They care about short term profit.
MetaFilter charges a membership fee, though they rely on ad revenue to keep it running. And it has to be pointed out that it was pretty close to shutting down last year (ad revenue was way down).
Because he's finnish it reminds me of this 1993 video of Future Crew making the PC demo "Second Reality":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIIBRr31DIU?cc_load_policy=1

(There's high quality english subtitles there.)

Finished product:

http://www.pouet.net/prod.php?which=63

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFv7mHTf0nA
There's an interesting phrase that is supposedly thrown around at hedge funds and major financial institutions when bonus time rolls around: IBGYBG - I'll be gone, you'll be gone.

For wealthy, older folks it makes more sense in terms of personal wealth to optimize for short term profits rather than go through the pain of pivoting and retooling the business in order to set it up for success down the road. So when the board and major investors ran the cost/benefit analysis of investing billions and undertaking the risk of shifting towards the renewables market vs. funding a few studies and paying off some scientists, they rationally chose the latter.

And they (whoever was making these decisions in the 1970's and 80's) were successful. They retired wealthy and those who are still around will not be held accountable today.

Edit: Also, shareholders would say this was and continues to be the right move. The company has a $350bn market cap today.

We do not have any semblance of an effective credit/tax system for pollution, global warming, and other such negative externalities. Until we (who? the UN? the WTO?) put a serious, economic price on pollution that shows up in the 10Ks, we can expect boards/investors to keep making the same choices.
Facebook is now a $300B company
But that's not what they're being prosecuted for, or even what they did wrong. Schneiderman is going after them for not telling their investors about a known risk to their business, namely the need to address climate change. This seems like a bit of a stretch to me, but I don't know the relevant law.

On the other hand, funding climate denial groups to put off the inevitable reckoning so they could make as much money as possible selling fossil fuels was morally repugnant. We're decades farther down the global warming road than we had to be, so the cost in life and dollars to un-fuck the planet is much greater than it had to be. And it won't be Exxon picking up the tab.
...to pay off their massive college debts.
Looks like wrk 4.0 [1] now has a similar "HDR histogram" latency algorithm as wrk2 -- have you tried it out?

[1] https://github.com/TechEmpower/FrameworkBenchmarks/issues/12...
So that is 4.8 to 7.1 percent which can be explained by any of the following:

- Any attributes not accounted for in part or in full. (Of which there are quite a lot.)

- Past sexism which impacts income in the modern day. (Sexism 30 years ago would have impacted starting incomes of people, which would have reflected up til today because one's initial compensation greatly impacts future compensation through many different factors.)

- Modern day sexism.

Given evidence such as looking at just the youngest generation and what they earn, you begin to see women not only equalizing with men in earnings, but out pacing them. This means that 5 to 7% gap is far more likely to be the first and second. And once you compare pay gaps to things like danger of the jobs chosen, you see there are many more factors that are hard to account for because people differ so much in how they view the worthiness of these factors.

Also some things often aren't accounted for. Consider that many studies looking at the pay gap compare full time work to full time work, not differentiating the difference between 37.5 hours a week (full time in government) and 80 hours a week (or even worse at a startup). BUT... even in the studies that do try to compare these, they don't compare the relevant experience gains (the person working 60 hours a week average will gain 1.5 times the experience of someone working 40 hours a week, to say nothing of the potential differences in those who go home and work on related not-work projects).

In short, once you account for all of these and look at those entering the work force, it turns out the pendulum has already swung the other way.

On a side note, there are even reports coming out that this may be impacting the dating market due to social pressures on both men and women to pair up in specific patterns (namely that the man should be making no less than the woman that he is dating and that he should be no less educated than her). While these social pressures are definitely weakening compared to past generations, they are not by any means gone yet.
> Windows 2000 was not consumer OS

Of course it was!

You must be thinking of the split between the consumer-oriented Windows 95/98/ME and the business-oriented Windows NT/2000.

The parent comment used "consumer" in another sense: an "I am not a computer person" end user. Windows 2000 was certainly intended to be fully usable by these kinds of consumers, at home or at work.

And the comment was more general than Windows 2000 - it is really a message to people who are designing OS features today.
> Is it that really, honestly that hard for people in power to recognize that trying to prevent progress in their industry is exactly what will get them in trouble, lose them all of their money and potentially land them in jail?

When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

When the only thing you care about is power, then the whole life becomes a power game.

"Progress? Pffft, that's for nerds."

There are no rational actors when it comes to money, it's all Wille zur Macht, with some at the top and most at the bottom. And "success" on this scale is only fanning the desire for more.

Human nature is pretty screwed up.
Maybe some day I'll start a blog. I try to stay relatively focused on my own startup attempts (that's where the insights come from, after all ;-)), so HN is just my way to blow off steam and indulge in a little distraction.
The company I worked for which did SR&ED would encourage us to log as many hours as possible (up to 80/week) on fake tickets on a regular basis. They used as many dirty tactics for government money as possible.
Compute time and storage costs are also bottlenecks, so even though the base calling through VCF is automated large genome centers struggle to keep up with the output of the new sequencers
More secure payment systems like CurrentC also employ tokenization to enhance user privacy and security throughout the payment process. This means that merchants are never given an actual bank account number, instead they are given a one-time use token that can be redeemed by a payment processor as if it was a valid bank account number.