skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
A choice quote from that thread:

> Between 2000 and 2004, [g95 fortran] front-end was coupled to the rest of the infrastructure of the GNU Compiler Collection. This was not trivial (just as it will not be trivial to couple the PGI front-end to the LLVM infrastructure).

They really don't get that LLVM's modularity is a strength...
This is a nice little idea; I’m cleaning it up for my own use under Linux, and I’d like to release it, but I cannot seem to find a license declaration for Ted’s code.

Anyone happen to know what license it was released under?
I'm scared for the future of Congress. What thoughtful person would want to enter that environment?
There is literally billions of dollars begging someone to figure out how, and plenty of contenders trying.
Ok... when exactly did millions of brave devoted their lives to defending privacy? There were all kinds of reasons for fighting (many of them including being drafted) but we never ever had a War For Privacy.
ReverbNation would need a lot of curation on top their rewards-for-uploads model to make it listenable. Unlimited skips wouldn't be enough for the early adopters to enjoy the stream.
Just showing that using copyright to suppress something is not new.
Lots of sites! Big and small. There are even several excellent Open Source CFML engines.
Coming from Rdio, I'm genuinely curious where you find the social experience in Spotify. Is it all in FB?

In Rdio I really enjoy the comments feature and how generally constructive it tends to be. In addition it's easy to find people with similar musical tastes in the list of recent listeners - I've followed people via this mechanism and found great music as a result. I don't see how to do the same in Spotify at all. Spotify shows me that 300k people listened to a band, with 18k new listeners today, but no individual link to any of them? And none of them can comment, post reviews, or link to music videos or trivia? Where's the user generated/curated content?

Granted I haven't used Spotify in a few years so it may just take me some time to find all of the things that are immediately at hand in Rdio in Spotify's (imo less friendly) UI.

RIP Rdio :(
Ragel doesn't support recursion (last I checked), so it's not suitable for many parsing jobs. I considered it for MoonScript's parser at one point but it didn't seem like it could do it. I've been experimenting with this project as a replacement for LPEG for the MoonScript parser: http://piumarta.com/software/peg/

I've made an LPEG style syntax that compiles to the peg syntax for that tool, which is then compiled to c and linked into a Lua module, you can see how the parser is written here: https://github.com/leafo/moonparse/blob/master/parse.peg.moo...
GCC includes a Java frontend too, but do any serious Java shops use it? It's not just about having a feature, it's about implementing that feature well and making it easy for others to contribute their improvements.
The difference is that in your imaginary discussion, the person is proposing nuance informed by evidence. The comment you're replying to, on the other hand, pushes against nuance based only on personal opinion.

I don't know anybody who would argue that gender has absolutely no biological implications. But to suggest they tell us something about how society should be structured is the naturalistic fallacy, confusing is with ought.

As an example, illness and death are natural. But that doesn't mean that we should just shrug and say, "Oh well, tuberculosis is natural, so we should just accept it." The natural details of death should certainly inform how we fight it. But they can never tell us we shouldn't.
Because stereo 360 is optically very difficult, and there aren't many rigs that do a good job of it. It's a hard problem, honestly, though people are working on it (including me, frankly).
Proposal Driven Development
Or you can use numba and with pure python syntax and get really fast.
I read it more like, because the music startups are so dependent on the licenses they are practically owned by the music industry ( though not technically) which I thought was kinda insightful.

But I guess you meant litterally.
No, stereo video content does not currently support that, unless it's animated in a game engine. Which is very rare.
> Under this reasoning, most all privacy is as good as dead and we are just waiting for the technology to get here.

Because it is! Thank you, somebody finally noticed. You can't preserve privacy and push technology forward, it's either-or. The best we can hope for is, if we chose to continue on the path of progress, that we'll establish social customs around expected privacy, that will amount mostly to "gentlemen turn around and do not look when a lady is undressing in a shared room" and to the privacy of correspondence ("we obviously can read your mail, but it's a common courtesy that we don't"). But you can't stop the fact that we're all radiating information to the world. And there's nothing invasive in collecting it - you don't have to touch me, you just have to stand within my light cone and take a look around.
Actuary here. I don't have the math at my fingertips, but to confidently estimate the risk of any occurrence you need a significant sample of the event, not just a significant amount of exposure.

So for instance, if you are estimating the mortality rate of a 25 year old and the rate for an 85 year old you would be equally confident in each estimate if your data sample contained an equal amount of deaths for each, not an equal amount of life-years.

So while we have many days of exposure to terrorism risk, we do not have many occurrences and therefore do not have a confident estimate of the rate of major terror attacks.
Apple Music's UI/UX is not only terrible it can prove deadly if used while driving. I know we shouldn't be messing with our music apps while driving but a good majority does.

Using Siri and Apple Music for the most part works like a charm and is helpful in terms of keeping one safe while driving/enjoying their music subscription app.
That was done years ago. "Anne Frank - The Definitive Edition" was published in 1997, and contains the material Otto Frank censored (nothing particularly surprising - it was the 1950's, and not at all a surprise that he would not release paragraphs about Anne's sexual feelings). It also has references on just what came from where (Anne did not just use one notebook) and what languages she used (she wrote in several. Otto Frank first translated it all into Dutch. His manuscript was what went out for translation in other languages).

Again, it's readily available. Keeping the copyright is something they're doing to prevent bad actors from trying (again) to harness the power of stupid people in large numbers.
"Python for-loops are slow"

CPython for-loops are slow. PyPy for-loops are not slow. A loop that just counts is about 25x faster in PyPy than in CPython, for large numbers of iterations.
That reminds me of this, which was even more insidious and probably caused more than a few unnecessary hardware replacements:

http://www.techsupportforum.com/forums/f10/strange-mysteriou...

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/windows-xp-computer-...

http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/624611
I don't think the human one would be true, because there were many more people dying in terrorist attacks over the last year. But otherwise yes, you could depending on the area provide different risks - which was my point: you can use it to compare continuous activities within some area / population group. But absolute values for single data points just don't give you much information.
Urban Siege in Paris: A Spectrum of Armed Assault
He references this [1] which doesn't talk at all about [2], but does give some interesting connections to Florida and the shell company he allegedly set up to steal trade secrets from a competitor (it was eventually settled out of court after the judge found the suit eligible under the civil portion of RICO [3])

Rumor on the street is the settlement was about equal to one entire mega round of funding that Palantir's took around that time [4].

It must have worked though, they've been bought out by private equity and had more than a billion dollars pumped into them to keep them afloat and growing.

1 - http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2012/09/18/how-did-shyam-s...

2 - http://www.scribd.com/doc/36371667/i2-v-palantir-080910

3 - http://www.phibetaiota.net/2010/10/journal-palantir-flush-wi...

4 - https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/palantir-technologie...
Sure. But Anne Frank is the wrong target here.

What about apologetic memoirs of active perpetrators or works of propagandists?

Albert Speer † 1981;
Fritz Hippler † 2002;
Leni Riefenstahl † 2003
New concepts emerge for generating clean, inexpensive fuel from water
The tech generation grew up in a 'free' culture of internet: illegal downloads, open source, pro bono collaboration. Paying for something that is equally equivalent to something that was free for decades usually is a tough sell. This doesnt apply to all people.
The plugin "HTML5 Video Everywhere!" would be worth it if just for the ability to disable autoplay.
> PG relates that even when the other partners are all go, Jessica has an amplifier that finds the negatives and blows it up?

He also gave at least one example (Airbnb) where they didn't like the idea, but funded them because they liked the founders. Who do you think was the primary judge of "liking" the founders in that case?

> unless this lady can put down the logical argument that connects the premises to the conclusions, and which can be argued against, I wouldn't want such a lady deciding justice for anyone.

What if the logical argument doesn't exist? You seem to be ignoring that possibility completely. We have to make choices all the time with insufficient information; in fact the situations in which we actually can articulate a logical argument for doing or not doing something are rare. The fact that you appear to be very uncomfortable with this does not make it false.

> People don't give off character and social cues, those are entirely constructs in the perceiving mind.

"Character and social cues" just means "information about what the person will do in situations other than the one they're currently in." All of us do give off this information, whether we like it or not. Everything you say and do is information about the internal processes that determine what you say and do, and therefore is information about what those internal processes will output in other circumstances. It's certainly not complete information, but complete information is unattainable anyway.

> Assuming that people are communicating some thing that they may not be is a recipe for problems.

People aren't consciously communicating character and social cues; in fact they might be consciously trying to hide them. That doesn't mean they can't be valid information.
Doing a rewrite seems to me to always result in a cleaner codebase faster than the incremental refactoring. That said, GCC today is a lot easier to interop with than the GCC of pre-LLVM times.

But, no amount of technical merit can save you when you don't have a free compiler anymore. Don't say Stallman didn't warn you, because he did, just like he warned you about all the other crap.

Remember, when you're getting burned by this, that you chose to make snarky comments on the Internet instead of realizing what the moral path forward was and doing the ethical thing.
Not sure it's generational as I'm under 30 so I'm not that old :\.

As far as I hear it used, "code(s)" is the standard term for what is loosely any large simulation package amongst people in the numerical community (which includes mathematicians and computer scientists alike, so it's not just an engineering thing).
Do you really need a lov sac? More than any other beanbag chair or alternate seating?

Or did the ad nudge you toward the conclusion that it is right for you, before you got over it and forgot?

Are you sure?
An alternative is to use a proxy. For example Pushpin (http://pushpin.org) can convert SockJS to native WebSockets. There might be others too.
Of course, but it would be offset by literally billions of dollars in profits that would not have to be hidden and gamed. Much of it would be distributed as dividends which would then be taxed as ordinary income.

Thousands of companies spend millions on accountants to avoid taxes. Getting rid of the corporate tax would change the economics. Instead of one company hiring accountants to save them millions in taxes, you would have millions of shareholders needing to hire accountants to save them thousands.

Edit: And it's easier to police the single-person companies. They can't afford the army of lawyers and accountants the large enterprises can.
I think having multiple options is always a bad idea for a language. It complicates the syntax and make people ask why not make parenthesis optional for loop statements as well? Then they perceive this as imperfect design - consciously or not. To me personally, this looks like a patch put in place just to entertain the Ruby crowd and is not along the lines of the solid unambiguous syntax that you're striving for!
> Do we have to turn everything into a gender issue?

Feminists are arguing for things not to be gender issues. People make it a gender issue when they ignore female accomplishments for which men would be honored. Paul Graham explictly made this a gender issue when he praised her for being the "mom".

If you don't think talking about these things is valuable, nobody's forcing you to talk about them. The participants, me included, don't see it as a waste of time, because society has been making steady progress on this for the last hundred years or so. Maybe in another hundred things finally won't be intrusively gendered all the time and we can all get back to what we're doing. If you'd like to help, great. If not, maybe let the people who care get on with it?
HN may be noisy, but PG is all signal
>"success criteria down the road (spawning high-profile publications, generating citations, coming in under-budget, whatever...)"

I wouldn't handwave this aspect. Creating incentives to optimize the wrong thing can be worse than using an arbitrary filter. Your first two sound like they encourage hype, popularity contests, and quantity over quality.

How about something combining reproducibility of analysis, availability/sharing of the data, precision of theoretical prediction, and consistency of quantitative estimates from independent replications?
> Social justice types:

People like this: http://www.dailycamera.com/cu-news/ci_29111364/cu-boulder-ra...
> once again you've successfully spurred a country to move away from its dependence on American technology, while doing nothing to meaningfully improve our security.

That's only if they are successful. And success, especially in that industry, is far from guaranteed. There are some critical breakthroughs they would need to make just to compete with the likes of Intel on even their low-mid range processors. Most of their designs are propriety which means China's computer initiative is going to be starting from scratch. That means they're starting at a point which puts them behind everyone else by at least 10-13 years or more. And still, there's no guarantee they'll ever come close to catching up. It's a huge $47B gamble on their part, which is almost certainly why they haven't done it sooner. That's a lot of money to lose, even for China, if they bust.

And I know some of you are thinking, "Well, they'll just steal the tech! Espionage baby!" Sorry, but that too, is unlikely. Due to China's recent aggressive tech grabs over the last decade or two, companies have "wised up" to IP theft and go to extreme measures to protect their assets. Some of those protections rival or even exceed the U.S governments. China's wild west days of stealing everyone else's IPs are winding down.
If the manufacturing cost is unsustainable expensive then who burdens the moral obligation to pay it? Me? You? That other guy who is over there and conveniently not in my backyard?
Definitely not an actuary here so forgive my ignorance: Isn't the fact that 'we do not have many occurrences' by itself enough to establish a lower bound?
The author doesn't seem to be very familiar with the Church side of the Church-Turing thesis. That is where the "limits of computation" notion comes from.

"All total functions are recursively enumerable"
As Elie Wiesel, another distinguished Holocaust author, put it: Some events do take place but are not true; others are – although they never occurred.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_(book)

(I'm not sure if Otto Frank's co-authorship falls into the first or second category.)
Definitely. Those (mostly dudes) who believe feminism is no longer necessary seem never to be able to say when they think true fairness was achieved. But they're awfully sure we have it now.
My heart sinks any time I discover that my only shipping option is UPS.

FedEx experience is easy peasy.
And they would parse it wrong. I'm not asking them to behave how I see fit. I'm asking them to behave like adults.

MLK behaved like an adult while his oppressors behaved like animals. That's what gave him the moral high ground.
"Proud of your neighbor's success" generally doesn't present as "forbidding trade of strategic goods with them".
Afraid so. I used to work there. The codebase is at least 15 years old in places. Team of 4-8 people looking after it and rolling out changes. Self-written CMS as well.

Every now and then somebody gets the idea of rewriting it in something else. Problem is that while it may look simple ( "I just need templates for front, section and articles pages") there is a lot of extras (see the 4-8 people and CMS). Note that newspaper companies don't have a lot of money these days.

I've heard they are having another go at it. For one thing it is hard to get CF programmers these days.
I upvoted you on the sheer idea that performance is paramount to the future of Python. I think Python needs to be 5x faster and use 1/5th the memory for the same tasks, in order to remain relevant years from now.

But, I still think PyPy has a long way to go.
What on earth are you talking about? I have literally never ever expressed my happiness over this community before. But just because i mention something once after having been here for i don't know how many years I am suddenly cultish?

It sounds more like a cultish anti-sentiment if anything.
I know you were being sarcastic, but airlines should start charging more if you are overweight, but NOT if you are tall.
Height is genetic and normal and can't be changed. Being overweight is not normal and can be changed. It is that simple.
Since so many people here mirrored that sentiment I'll just say my experience with Zenefits has been mostly pretty good. I have run into a few minor bugs, but nothing disastrous, and the salespeople have been friendly and knowledgable. I'm probably about the easiest business to run but can't really complain about them (other than the ADP snafu, which is at least not entirely their fault).
Before they were famous
Right, risk estimation would be a probability distribution by itself. It won't be a five sigma confidence in the estimation. But if one was to do the work and actually calculate the estimation distribution, I'd find it hard to believe that the result would be much of any concern than our normal daily risk.
It's their word against the Anne Frank Stichting at this point. And their word is not 'we are doing this to prevent bad actors from trying to harness the power of stupid people in large numbers'. Their words are that they are 'protecting Anne Frank'.

As for stupid people in large numbers: that's precisely why the message should be available to all. It is stupid people in large numbers that are about to vote Geert Wilders to become the first ultra-nationalist right-wing MP of the Netherlands and all that without being able to carve up Anne Franks diary to their liking.

I note that if they really were altruistic in their motives they could easily get the unrest they created go by waving their fees and permitting the distribution of other versions by specific parties under special license without letting go of the copyright in order to be able to challenge would-be carver-uppers.
>A lot of the applicants probably read her as some kind of secretary, especially early on, because she was the one who'd go out and get each new group and she didn't ask many questions. //

Yet elsewhere it's noted that one of the candidates pointed out that Livingston asked the fewest but most pointed questions. This makes me wonder if anyone ever did think that Livingston was "some kind of secretary" [and what's wrong with that] or if that assumption just plays to the conclusion that sex rather than, say, hot-headed assertiveness or attention seeking is the reason for the disparity in public perceptions of Livingstone and Graham. [I'm talking speculatively, I don't know either of these people].

Given the nature of the essay I find this, in the footnotes, quite peculiar:

>No one understands female founders better than Jessica. //

Why does she only understand female founders the best - that would presumably be because females are inherently different in some characteristics pertinent to being founders? Why is this not "No one understands founders better ..." is there someone who does understand founders better but for some reason is unable to understand female founders as well as they do male founders.

Surely this is the answer to the question posed on notability if others are better at understanding founders who are male, for some reason, then as more founders are male [it seems, I don't have stats on this, just going with my perception of the consensus] it would stand to reason that those best able to understand the largest cadre of founders are most notable - this understanding we're told is the vital element in the field after all.

The inclusion of the word "female" here is the key one way or another.

>The person who knows the most about the most important factor in the growth of mature economies—that is who Jessica Livingston is. //

It almost looks like Graham is saying, but perhaps not wanting to say, that the sex of his co-founder is the key element in reaching a broader base of founders?

I'm not at all saying Livingston isn't the best person in the World in this role, but Graham's footnote leads away from that conclusion.

On a slightly different focus:

>There are successful women who don't like to fight. //

People. There are successful _people_ who don't like to fight; unless you're saying their sex is the reason they don't like to fight or that this characteristic is peculiar to women then why do people have to force sexual bivalence all the time. The inference that follows that all [successful] men do like to fight is doubly unhelpful IMO.
Who buys Coke only twice per year?
Where did this title come from? Not only is it not the title of the post in question, but it's quite inaccurate -- the article doesn't even come close to claiming that anything "almost killed" the doodle.

With that said, I clicked the click-bait title, and I enjoyed the article. (shrug.)