skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I think you have to be a little more specific. If
merely removing a former legal right is evil, who
were the bad guys when a Maryland referendum removed
the right to own slaves

I think the answer to that is clear if you subscribe to the principal that one person's rights end where another person's rights begin.

It's certainly true that the slaveowners had the rug pulled out from under them in a sense but their legal right to own slaves infringed (to put it mildly) on pretty much every single human right the slaves had.

With same-sex marriage, on the other hand, it's very difficult to see how one person's consensual marriage could possibly infringe on another person's rights.

Also, if the correct position is that marriage in any
shape is a legal right, are we going to crucify people
who made polygamy illegal?

You're absolutely right: the polygamy question is very tricky. I can't give you a single objective reason why it shouldn't be legal.[1]

It's incredibly fallacious, though, to suggest that same-sex couples shouldn't have the right to marry simply because there's another tricky marriage-rights question out there. (If we discover that there's a wrongfully-convicted person serving time in a state prison, should we make him stay there because we haven't figured out what to do with the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay?)

are we going to crucify people who made polygamy illegal?

I'd say that we should consider their views in the context of the times in which they lived. The human race has come a long way in the last couple of centuries in terms of recognizing human rights.

Hopefully some things that you and I believe today will be viewed as positively caveman-like in 200 years. That's the price of progress.

I'm bothered by people adopting fashionable causes as a
reason to hate people who don't believe in them

This and the "crucify" thing are really straw man arguments. I'm certain there are some exceptions out there but during the entire Eich/Mozilla public debate, I didn't see anybody (certainly not anybody prominent) claiming that Eich was a terrible person or that we should hate him.

I certainly don't hate Brendan Eich; he seems like a good person in general. Even if it was the right thing to do, which I think it was, nobody "won" that whole mess. The Mozilla community lost a great contributor.

___

[1] I believe you should be able to legally designate whomever you like as a family member and assign whatever family-related rights you want to them. The government should generally stay out of the morality business as long as everything is between consenting adults.

From a purely legal standpoint, titles like "wife" or "brother" or "cousin" are really just titles that confer various sets of default rights and establish a default order of precedence for inheritance and power of attorney. (On a personal level those titles mean much more to me than that, but that's my business)
I was a bit surprised when I saw the link to the Nix package manager; it seemed rather out of context. I wonder if he just googled Nix and copy-pasted the first result?
I am addressing the main claim of the article quite clearly. Static typing adds complexity and there's no evidence that the added complexity results in any tangible benefits.

Therefore, my prediction is that dynamic typing isn't going anywhere unless some empirical evidence appears that clearly demonstrates the advantages of static typing. Seeing how long static typing has been around I wouldn't hold my breath on that.

If you think that static languages have won then you must live in a very special bubble seeing how pretty much all of the web runs on JavaScript.

Having such strong convictions in absence of any empirical evidence is simply faith and static typing seems to just be a religious experience for some people. Many advocates are like bible thumpers coming to your door and telling you to accept monads into your heart. Naturally these are the loudest elements of the community who live in their own little echo chamber.
just gave it a try: i love it!
> Coding is boring, unless… you're building something cool and meaningful.

The problem comes when the people doing the coding don't consider the business goal of the software to be cool and meaningful. To everyone but the programmers, it doesn't matter what tech you use to build the solution if it's not solving an important problem.

So they start writing a web app with Backbone and then move to Angular and finally React without ever have created a viable product, but they feel good because they are using something that other devs feel is the coolest and most meaningful today.
Helm is terrific. I switched to it from ido in the past 6 months and it's really increased my efficiency. In particular helm + projectile allows me to really quickly switch between projects and navigate to the file I need. I remapped some of the most-used emacs commands to their helm equivalent's and haven't looked back:

(global-set-key (kbd "C-x r l") 'helm-bookmarks)
(global-set-key (kbd "M-x") 'helm-M-x)
(global-set-key (kbd "M-y") 'helm-show-kill-ring)
(global-set-key (kbd "C-x b") 'helm-mini)
(global-set-key (kbd "C-x C-f") 'helm-find-files)
(global-set-key (kbd "C-c g") 'helm-git-grep)
(global-set-key (kbd "C-c C-.") 'helm-git-grep-at-point)
(global-set-key (kbd "C-x C-d") 'helm-browse-project)

My one complaint is getting used to C-z to drill into a directory when navigating the file system with helm-find-files. I haven't et figured out a way to map RET to do anything other than open the selected directory in Dired.
The X-Gene 1 was a development platform designed to work out the software bugs (and it's also obsolete now, since it was first produced in 40nm in 2013). Obviously if you compare latest Intel SoC with some 2+ year old dev-kit, the latest Intel looks great! They should compare Xeon with Cavium ThunderX, X-Gene 2/3, AMD Seattle, Qualcomm's latest server SoC or the HiSilicon D0x.

http://www.hotchips.org/wp-content/uploads/hc_archives/hc26/...

http://www.cavium.com/ThunderX_ARM_Processors.html
I'm no literary or intellectual property expert, but I have attributed Lovecraft's rise with the fact[0] that the Cthulhu mythos is a) entertaining and well-written, and b) effectively exists in the public domain, and c) is one of the last unique narratives that legally exist in the public domain, allowing anyone to legally help grow the corpus.

In other words, writers don't have to pay licenses or royalties for use of the universe, and their stories can enjoy the benefit of being framed by the previously-written canon without being pigeonholed. I would think this can help grease the wordsmith's skids.

[0] I don't know if any of this is true or factual, I'm very open to corrections and other interpretations!
Elixir isn't that old and it'll be interesting to see if it caches on. It's basically Erlang with a nicer syntax and some new ideas.
On what basis do you think that someone's political views should be beyond mere discussion?

I'm trying to figure out why--discussing the views held by your fellow citizen--that is a bad thing. I'm trying to understand how that advances any sort of democratic principle, to draw the line at "you can't talk about what I donate to".
That's true. Also, the EventBus is very robust and speeds up software development a lot.
There are things that science can never "prove wrong", because they aren't set up as falsifiable hypotheses (eg: lucky charm hats). The best that science could do is establish a lack of correlation (assuming a certain set of control factors). Interpreting the result of such an experiment is strongly a function of your null hypothesis (or bayesian prior). It is only by applying the law of the excluded middle that one "reasonably" concludes that a lack of indication is an indication of there being no correlation.

Also, the cost of wearing a lucky hat is negligible compared to the happiness gained from your team's victory (and often adds to the atmosphere/excitement). That is why people can "believe" in things that could reasonably be dismissed.
‘Anything’ included scripts. I used this heavily when I was moderating mailing lists — F5 Accept, F6 Reject.
The findings are interesting, however I don't think that such a small sample can be used to make any conclusive assumptions and I think that these findings should be taken with a grain of salt. Since all these studies tend to have quite small sample sizes, it is quite likely that they will contradict past studies of similar sizes.
> A key ingredient here is diversity

And all of the employees are white men. Yep.

And what evidence is there that this advice is sound? The company hasn't been around for the same length of time that the author says is usually when he gets bored. This is just his rambling train of thoughts on the matter, and what is important to him.
> It seems the designers of the web (W3C et al.) are focusing on the wrong, short term, goals of making end-users happy rather than developers.

Since people are responding that users are more important than developers - I think there's another piece of insight hidden here. The Web was originally designed around users being the developers. Or, publishers, which was an equivalent concept.

Given that all of this added complexity is used mostly for the purpose of selling people trinkets they don't need (or selling their data to someone else), I'm still not sure this was a good development.
> Hawking radiation has a large information theory hole

If you are referring to the fact that radiation brings back information from the inside of the black hole, which undermines notion of black hole being "event horizon", then there is one proposal to close this hole (it had been even submitted to HN recently): computational complexity.

From what I understood this means that while in principle radiation leaks information from inside of the black hole, the computational effort needed to put that information together in its original form is too big to be possible to do in practice (at least before thermodynamical death of universe).
Guide to deciphering C declarations (2013)
The JVM has supported the kind of environment you describe for more than a decade. Fire up IDEA or Eclipse, put a break point in your code and modify it at runtime at your heart content.

You can even rerun portions of your code after you've modified it (rewind it), something that even Smalltalk never supported.
Well, and go one further: if a common employee does hold an unpopular opinion and they publicize it widely, think how long they'll last at the company anyway.

Take a totally fictional example, a product manager at Intel who, on the weekends, has been leading neo-nazi marches and getting on the news. The reporters ask him, "what do you do to pay for all these flags and banners and tattoos?" "Oh, I work at Intel during the week. I'm a product manager in the networking hardware division."

Think how many weekends they'd give out that interview answer before Intel let them go for whatever reason.
The Strong Static Typing camp appears to be blissfully oblivious of Gödel's incompleteness theorems. :)
Well, startups are scrappy.

My first real office (after a couple months working out of my living room) was a shoebox. I was mostly meeting with clients but when I was around I didn't even have a desk. I had a chair... by the door.

I'm usually shocked by how well equipped startups office are for teams of less than 10 in SV.
Agreed. More interesting is the variant where people try to solve a cube in as few moves as possible.
True enough, though I didn't really feel like someone making a snarky comment about safe spaces was going to give a shit about the gender/sex distinction so, given that if the study is credible it's probably about sex rather than gender, I went with that.
Show HN: Spice up Codemirror with particle explosions
It looks like a good CISSP study book.
You can do it, but you don't. It's not a language thing, it's a culture thing.

Language like Haskell forces you to do it. It is more effort, but this effort pays off in getting composability and edge cases right. The end result is not actually harder to understand, it's rather that you did not fully understood the problem in the beginning (by glossing over technical details).
When people write Lisp code, they invent new dynamic languages all the time. Inventing and implementing new languages (a.k.a. writing macros) is just part of the regular course of doing business in Lisp. And these languages that people invent when writing Lisp tend to be dynamic, because they tend to compile to Lisp. But of course they don't have to be.
Which boils down to the old "consumers view computers as black boxes" argument. The question is whether we should care about that or not, and whether the pain of not being able to run GenPop's favorite software grows too big. Being locked into the respective device's app store hides that pain to a degree. And whenever it becomes noticable, GenPop rather considers switching to a different vendor than considering the tech in question. As long as people put band-aids around the architecture, I'm not sure why any consumer would want care about the underlying hardware in question.
Factor Playground
Speedcuber here: each competitor starts with the same initial state for each solve in their best of X. Yes, there is some luck involved but it's distributed equally.
Relevant video from juliacon on the type system core: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUP3cSKb8sI

Julia's type system is geared towards JIT compilation. Methods are compiled when they are first called. Then, of course, full type information for the arguments is available. That's quite enough for Matlab-style code with the occasional JITted method.
But Julia has one glaring disadvantage for everything beyond that: The return type of methods cannot be specified / enforced.

1) With "black box" methods (where the return type cannot be inferred as in this DataFrames article) the code becomes horribly slow. And you have to dig into the internal method representations to become aware of the type inference results.

2) It hurts the ability of Julia to produce binary executables. When the types are not 100% inferrable, the entire JIT infrastructure needs to be dragged along.

3) Types are not only an aid for the compiler, but also an aid for the programmer. With SIUnits [1] and method return types, Julia could even tell when the physics represented in the code is flawed!!

If Julia's type system were stronger, it could become a prime platform to develop Computer Algebra Systems (CAS). That could lead to a great unification of symbolic and numerical "computation platforms". However, current Julia is unable to represent the mathematics encoded in the type system of open source CAS like Axiom [2]. Also note the github issue on Julia and dependent typing [3].

Imho, there is still a great potential for the Julia type system without breaking existing code.

[1] https://github.com/Keno/SIUnits.jl

[2] http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.27....

[3] https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/6113
But the essay, such as it is, was about usefulness or uselessness, not money. And in any case, there are hundreds of millions (more probably billions) of humans on this planet who neither have nor need money. Your concept of retirement is narrow and necessarily bound to a particular mode of living, as well as largely unrelated to whether someone is useful. The idea that the three phases of life are childhood (idleness), employment (saving money), and retirement (spending money) is both historically and culturally anomalous. It's more constructive to think about the many modes of living and their relationship to one's personal utility and sense of worth than to dwell on labels, especially since so many people live in ways that are hybrids or entirely outside the system your labels assume.
Indeed, and it is not just with frameworks and languages, but also architectural and methodology fads. Several times, I have seen those who see themselves as architects try to roll their own frameworks or even languages within a project (the 'inner platform' phenomenon, which is quite common.) Those I have seen have all been failures, once catastrophically so.

As a result of its effects on the work of other members of the team, such people often have a negative net productivity. I, too, am in favor of making things interesting where possible, but not to the point of indulging the Dunning-Kruger effect.
> With dynamic typing you're much more likely to break things up early precisely because you know you have to keep things in your head.

If you are programming with a language that forces to keep everything in your head, you'll never build big systems.
“Help stamp out flying e's”

And of course <x-eudora-setting:319=32>
The initial state is a random computer generated scramble. It's easy to calculate if you have a computer but it isn't easy when you have to do it in your head.
Yeah, although I think that a lot of people misjudged the original article because it used "gender" and "sex" interchangeably, as well as "man"/"woman" and "male"/"female" a lot.
It's a very strong and largely baseless claim.
His ideas are inspiring. But I'm a "mechanical" guy, I want to know how it works. Stop me if I'm wrong, but there seems to be very little on that front.

If you look for instance at LightTables, which sort of scratch the same visualization itch. The demos are awesome, but then you think at what it takes to make them work, you realize it's a lot of case-per-case work. Work people won't always be willing to put in to have a nicer visualization of a problem instance. It's dead in the water for general debugging, for instance. I can see it work for specialized frameworks (animation ...) and scientific research however.

So I'm interested but not excited enough to jump into the bandwagon before I know where it's headed.
Now you're moving around the goalposts. I was replying to "Even if there isn't some sort of payola deal going on to feed that money back to Mozilla, this is clearly being done for profit. Maybe it's some sort of indirect benefit, maybe it's someone doing a favor for a friend."

There's no indirect benefit (aside from having a new feature). There's a very clear and logical reason behind the integration. In retrospect, they should have consulted with the community first perhaps, but it's false that Mozilla did this for some direct or indirect benefit.
Well the Xeon-D 1540 sits just below the E5 in most benchmarks, unfortunately I can't conjure benchmarks out of think air, but you don't seem to be able to do so either (but for all accounts Cavium isn't shipping anything yet, all i could find are press releases that some one said they'll be building servers based on their SOC bot nothing else).
I wasn't comparing anything, anantech was they compared an available Intel Xeon-D SOC against a commercially available HP micro-server that was launched 6 months prior so either HP chose to use an "obsolete development platform that was designed to work out software bugs" or that what was available for them at the time.
Again I wasn't saying that ARM CPU's are bad, I was saying that anyone that is saying that they currently can beat Intel on either price/performance or performance/wattage across the board is delusional.
Rubik's cube always gets me thinking about group theory.
Eg. http://www.gap-system.org/Doc/Examples/rubik.html
Back then you had fixed hardware platforms, much like gaming consoles. The A500, besides some additional RAM, stayed the same hardware config for the duration.

The PC today barely have the BIOS in common of the PC of the era.

This seems to have made developers lazy, as performance problems could always be fixed with an hardware upgrade (why it seemed that MS and Intel was in cahoots about some kind of tick-tock plan).

Also, the net happened. And thus a increased focus on security (to the point of paranoia perhaps). Thus where before a program could pull all kinds of "shenanigans" to maintain performance, these days it would throw multiple security violation errors. End result is that the computer is "wasting" cycles doing all kinds of checks where before it was full speed ahead.
It is, in fact, not easy at all to calculate that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God%27s_algorithm

(There isn't as much info as there should be on that Wikipedia page but it was an open area of research for decades.)
The adolescent ecosystem: Singapore reaching puberty
That's not a fact. It's a claim by the "Intersex Society of North America".

"The Intersex Society of North America suggested that 1 percent of live births exhibit some degree of sexual ambiguity.[115]"
They just announced it's going to be delayed by another 6 years, probably why the reason for this article:

http://news.sciencemag.org/europe/2015/11/breaking-iter-fusi...

ITER is going to be the F-35 of science projects.
ARS isn't loading for me, yes the a9x is a monster chip especially as far graphics and synthetic benchmarks goes, try real world applications (quite hard to near impossible on Apple devices due to the closed ecosystem) including web server performance, video compression throttling and many more aspects and you'll see that's not the case.
It's very competitive with Core-M devices for sure but sorry not sold out on it being competitive against Core-I devices on any level besides maybe graphical performance so far.

As far as Intel making apple SOC's and? Intel is selling modems to Apple, and it wants to fab SOC's for them as well.
Since Apple is fabless and Intel has the most advanced SC production line at the time it nailed 14nm and it's pushing for 10nm next year for launch in 2017 I don't see this being indicative of anything, Intel tested the water with ARM almost 8 years ago and it decided to continue with x86, and we've seen quite interesting things coming from them Core-M, Xeon-D, and even things like Intel Edison which showed that x86 can be scaled to pretty much every use at this time while still being very interesting and competitive in terms of both price, performance, and power consumption.

We've been hearing this gloom and doom about "Wintel" for almost 2 decades now, linux is going to beat them, no wait apple power PC, no ARM, sigh it's getting old.
Intel isn't going anywhere soon and it has enough resources to push through and their technology and where they can take it so far does not seem to be obsolete on any scale.
There exists a belief of a concept of 'gender' outside of a person's 'sex', which relates to how a person 'identifies'. (I think this might be about how a person 'experiences being themself', but I am not sure. I think the same term 'how they experience being themself' could also relate to the idea of 'otherkin', but again, I am not sure.). In some cases, a person's 'gender' will be neither 'male' nor 'female', in which case it is termed 'non-binary' (or, 'outside of the gender binary') (I am not entirely sure that this is sufficient for a person's 'gender' to be termed 'non-binary', as some genders are like 'demimale' or w/e, and I'm not sure if these are classified as 'non-binary' or not.).

The term used was 'safe-spaces' and 'exposure to safe-spaces', not 'safe exposure'.
'safe spaces', to my understanding, refers to a area/location/space where people who have certain common beliefs (or experiences?) gather to be (temporarily) away from those who might have negative views of those ideas or of people who have had those experiences or something else like that. I think part of it might be like, defending one's viewpoint against the same criticisms (by different people) repeatedly can be tiring and stressful, when one is trying to discuss things related to that viewpoint, not the viewpoint itself. So the 'safe-spaces' are a place where a certain group can discuss things relevant to that group without being accused or insulted for it? Something like that. I suspect that http://existentialcomics.com/comic/93 is a reasonable representation of some form of the idea?

I suspect that you arent really expressing confusion but are making a point, but I figured that I would give my incomplete understanding of the terms in question, in case I am wrong about that.
the water level penetrates the boat?