skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
there are two things i think worth pointing out here.

1.) the study focuses on the developing world, which is a very different environment than the developed world. as such i do not believe its conclusions can be considered to say much about that, despite the title of the submission suggesting otherwise. that 'welfare' a phenomenon of the developed world, does not go to lazy recipients.

2.) the nature of the problem of undeserving people receiving state-sponsored benefits. so i am living in the uk and i know people who receive benefits. one person i know who admits to this, imo is deserving, and they represent a small proportion of people i know who admit to receiving state funded benefits.

the people i talk about who are happy to admit to receiving help from the state tend to have more resources and support at their disposal than seems fair. they are better off than me - a single man earning ~£60k a year - /before/ they earn benefits, and these people have no problem telling me that i am /stupid/ for working hard to earn my money.

literally. i have been called /stupid/ multiple times for earning my own survival and lifestyle.

most of these people make money illegally from doing things like drug dealing, loan sharking or illegally renting out the property they own (yes you can receive support if you own £100ks worth of property - disgusting imo when that is enough worth to sell your property and survive for considerably more than a year on the earnings without working.)

they are not representative of the general case though - i think most people who receive help and actually need it would be too ashamed to admit it. but people like the ones i know, in my case, enable me to continue to have the opinion that there are people getting help who simply don't need it.

to sum up, this study does nothing to alter my opinion on the idea that state sponsored benefits are abused. its just another thing telling me that people who need help do not abuse it - but those who do not will.
> One of the major roles of academics is to put words and define concepts around things that already exist but that lay people do not consciously think about.

But people _do_ consciously think about it. Most people have conceptions, insecurities, and pride around what it means to be a man and what it means to be a woman. They are not studying things that people express but are unconscious or indifferent towards.
> If a country wants to do this with domestic software produced by a domestic business

It doesn't really make sense to do that with domestic software and to give imported software a free pass.

> which other country that is a party to this treaty is going to have standing to bring litigation

Why does it need to be a country? The domestic software maker whom the government forces to do something that is not allowed under the treaty should have standing.

For example, there's Russia-Canada income tax treaty. If one of those countries wants to hose me in a way that is contrary to that treaty, I should be able to use it to defend myself. I assume it would work the same way with TPP, but obviously IANAL.
Have you looked at http://penflip.com/ or https://draftin.com/?
One thing I see is the fatalism of many leading developers. One who focuses on privacy commented on HN recently that it wasn't realistic to think people would use anything but iOS or Android on phones. Thank goodness Linus Torvalds, the GNU developers, Mozilla's team, and many others didn't give up so easily.
I mostly view welfare recipients as rational parasites and not as lazy.

The title of the paper is misleading and the entire paper is flawed.

No one claims welfare impacts labor participation without looking at the pre-condition for receiving welfare. Surely send a check to my home every month, I wont leave my job because of that.

However if I am earning $100 and hour and if the pre-condition to get welfare check of $80 is that I should earn less than $150, will I spend time and energy upgrading my skills for a job that pays $160 ? If I am smart I wont.

It is an idiotic exercise to measure labor participation without factoring the pre-conditions for receiving welfare checks.

India's large scale MNREGS did not impact work hours of Individuals in the country. It only drove the rural wages up. The social security for uncared senior citizens in some states however tells a different story. More and more old people were dumped by their children because being uncared was a precondition for receiving welfare.
Define what's secure first. Any unintended behavior can become a security flaw, and there will always be unintended behavior in anything complex.
Ask HN: Schedule website changes. What do you think?
WW3+HERE+IS+UR+proof+Turkey+US+BACKING+ISIS+-+YouTube
"My reckons" are not generally reliable when it comes to law.
"We are at the dawn of an environmental crisis that will end humanity." Huh?
So, is this the sort of thing the TPP and other trade agreements will let companies overrule.
> int8(100) + int8(100) = -56

is just one possible answer. Signed integer overflow depends on signed integer representation in go (it's undefined for unsigned integers in C):

https://golang.org/ref/spec#Integer_overflow

So the SafeAddInt8 in the blogpost may not be correct on architectures that use really strange representations.

Lots of C developers that wanted to make their code safer ran into a related trap in C. There it's totally undefined and the compiler may just throw the check out all together.

I wonder why Go doesn't just define signed integers to be in 2's complement representation. Are there any architectures out there that use something else for integers?
I made the below presentation for a talk a while ago. The notes have roughly what I said in the presentation to try to demystify the internals.

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1t8grwHN0SB7HGgD9Jv9g...
As an aerospace engineer who codes rather than a software engineer, is there a cheatsheet that talks about how to use git from a "when do I commit/merge/etc" rather than a "this the command to perform commit/merge/etc"? Basically, an "Idiot's Guide to Making My Life Easier with Git"

I've tried to use git a few times at work, but I always end up forgetting to use it for awhile when deadlines start creeping up so it becomes "well, the code works in it's current state and it's been 2 months since I committed, so I should probably update the repo" which doesn't seem much better than periodically backing up the folder.
I don't know what the Japanese felt, but I think the US maybe was about as hegemonic as Japan, Britain, Russia, Germany, France. It wouldn't hurt for US citizens to know these bullet points in their history that relate to Japan's neighborhood: Perry's expedition to Japan, the Spanish American war, but especially the Phillipine Insurrection, the Anti-Imperialist League, the Boxer Rebellion, the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, and the Yangtze Patrol, and its context.
So you're saying there's absolutely no harm in being specific, because that's a different section? That's new to me, and if correct, I retract my claim above. Thanks.
This is called Continuation Passing Style: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuation-passing_style
Going full devil's advocate here.

Likely security is going to become so omnipresent before it stops becoming a nuisance. In a world where irrational people can travel practically with immunity, where they can gather materials to cause great harm, many will not want to pay the price for their freedom. So security would need to become so integrated it just fades into the background.

We can bemoan our loss of freedoms all we want but it never ceases to amaze the very same people posting such a complaint will none the less turn right around and demand government take action against someone doing something they don't approve of or take over services they think they are entitled too.

So get with it, you give the government an inch they won't stop taking. Just as quickly as you demand they take action against those you don't like you should fully expect someone to ask them to actions against you directly or indirectly.
Good grammar is something that helps large groups of people understand each other quickly and clearly. It helps those armies and navies succeed.
"Due its complexity, Chromium uses a set of custom tools to check out and build. Here’s an overview of the steps you’ll run:

gclient. A checkout involves pulling nearly 100 different SVN repositories of code. This process is managed with a tool called gclient.

.
.
.
"

// everytime i upgrade a browser? cmon..
I'll echo netheril96, but it's perhaps worth mentioning that for very large projects, especially if they are likely to be compiled on a weak machine, it can reduce compilation times by limiting the size of the symbol table.
The first thing to fix is bad tooling, yes, but it's not the whole picture.

Once all your queries are safe by default, your languages have memory safety, your templates XSS-encode by default etc etc (this is basically the situation at most sane workplaces) - there are still security issues.

There are fewer security issues left, but they're gnarlier. What we see now are "application logic" and business logic issues. Overflow and language-level sharp edges exist, but these are a small proportion of the mistakes developers (in particular, web application) seem to be making.

Situations where the server unintentionally signs user-controlled data, bad OAuth2 flows, missing or incorrect authorisation checks, accepting data from the client as "validated" - these are much more common in my experience.

The other interesting thing I've noticed is that when developers who are used to "safe by default" frameworks have to step outside the framework for any reason (e.g. front-end is 90% angular, but 10% "bespoke" JS) they will make mistakes with very high likelihood.

The solution is tooling yes, but also education and process.
App Vendor – New Mobile Platform for Uniting App Developers with Investors
'Outsiders' Crack 50-Year-Old Math Problem
The US was maybe more active in Japan's neighborhood than you might be thinking: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yangtze_Patrol
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Panay_incident
He actually addresses this.
Distributed locks with Redis
I'm having meetings with local branches of the English Department for Work and Pensions to try to get some clarification around their rules for people claiming out of work disability benefits who also do work of various types.

The out of work disability benefits are currently Employment and Support Allowance (contributions based), Employment and Support Allowance (income related), and Universal Credit.

People on ESA might be in the work related activity group (can work, should work), or the support group (probably could work at some point, or with correct support, but DWP (and probably society) have given up on these people).

The work might be "therapeutic activity" (a regular activity, unpaid, organised by certain approved providers); "voluntary work" (needs to be for a charity, or approved by DWP), "service user participation" (sometimes paid, but not always, and this is the stuff I'm working hardest on to get some clarification about. Many people do it, and they probably should be declaring it in advance (disabled people need to ask permission before they do work!) and then declaring the small amounts of income, although the rules are unclear, or paid work.

If anyone wants to see the rules for this you can have a look at the Decision Makers Guide and the Advice for Decision Makers. (The ADM is for Universal Credit).

I know a bunch of people who do service user participation and they have no idea how to declare it, and the DWP have no idea what it is (even though it's in their rules) and so a bunch of people are inadvertently not in compliance with the rules. That's bad enough, but when DWP change their mind they treat the claimant as a fraudster and stop benefits, when the claimant has only ever done exactly what they were told by DWP.

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/decision-makers-gu...

Any journos: Download the decision makers guide. Then print it all out and stack it up. Then find a handful of real people and try to make a decision about their case.
Disclaimer: These statements have not been evaluated by the FDA. Our products are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.
there is still a lot of pain in using visual studio for iOS.

its obviously the way forward though... i'd still not use swift for it predominantly if i can use a tiny layer of obj-c/swift to interface to sensible code written in C++ that works for every other platform too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
The Greatest Paper Map of the US, Made by a Guy in Oregon (2012)
I've seen the same thing in my experience. After hours of work, many Go repo's simply don't help other people to use their software.
neither are of great benefit imo. they certainly don't allow me to do anything new... just enable me to do things with less work.

this is not a bad thing, and certainly is a good thing, but on its own its a tiny benefit compared to writing code that works on all platforms, and which compiles to very efficient use of instructions (i have ample experience removing swift and obj-c code as an optimisation strategy sadly).
By the end of the war, the US was producing as many light aircraft carriers per month as Japan had produced over the entire war. Whatever the exact numbers were, it was silly lopsided.
without /this/ c++ compiler. not all of them ¬_¬
The first amendment doesn't really "allow" anything; it is a prohibition of certain actions by congress.
Once you made any noticeable change, it's time to commit. Bonus points for only including files / chunks related to the completed change and not other changes in-flight. This ggives you a nice, annotated history and a way to step back to known state. Many commits a day is the norm.
Here is a very similar question on patents.stackexchange.com: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/9994/are-patents-...

Basically, if there's a significant cost to entry, and if the idea were open to anyone, it would discourage anyone from using the patent. With patent licensing there's a barrier to entry that gives a measure of exclusivity that is an additional motivation to anyone taking the idea to market.

I'm not really sure that I agree that governments should own and selectively sell ideas, even if for a short time but I can see the logic in that argument.
No, I was referring to the excesses of the monarchy. I think North Korea is one example of a Communist country that has gone above and beyond any ancient monarchy with its terrible mix of poverty, starvation, exploitation there. And it's still going that way even today.
An absolute disgrace that so many monstrously evil war criminals were let off after the war.

But the US is currently shipping weapons and money to brutal dictators in several countries in a horrible display of RealPolitik, so not much has changed.
You are correct in your computation of the expiration date.

Why this was posted now, when it expired over 20 years ago, I am unsure.
Erlang is sort of this. All I/O is done by passing messages to Port objects which send the results/errors back as messages. Your process doesn't block until you tell it to and you don't block on a single operation exactly: you block on waiting for a message in your process's mailbox.

The nice thing about this approach is that you can emulate blocking or non-blocking I/O within the same function or even against the same file descriptor. And processes are so cheap that if your callees do block in unexpected ways you can just move that one call into its own process that just sends you a message when it's done.
i strongly disagree with that sentiment. but there we go... i can certainly go into more detail if you would like, but the main thing for me is that it solves no problems that existing languages do not, and the generated code (i.e. instructions for the CPU) from using the abstractions provided are considerably worse for performance than if i abuse a language like C++ to achieve the same features.

this is damning of the quality of the compiler imo. now that its open source i might make some effort to help this... but it seems unlikely given the utter lack of motivation to use the language to begin with (a tiny thing layer of obj-c is all i need for now - i see no reason to change this - even in light of swift)

to me it seems like apple are solving a problem that doesn't exist because they choose to ignore established and well developed languages and tool chains.
Looks nice! I took a stab at this a while back https://gist.github.com/icodeforlove/deb0f19a9e7bd528bd48
How long have they held that perception of time? I'm under the impression that in the Anglosphere it is only as old as railroads.
You can't just sprinkle async onto existing functions and have the awaiting code resume magically: Going async also requires an event loop.

Adding an event loop to an environment where there previously has not been one is non-trivial.

Also, changing existing blocking methods to be non-blocking would break everything that uses (and expects) those APIs to be blocking.
Have you looked at intercepting the TLS connection by MITMing yourself?

Tools like Fiddler should allow you to see this data in plaintext, though identifying what information it contains is another step.
Swift 2 compiles much faster than Swift 1. I'm not sure I'd call it "fast" yet, but I no longer have time for a coffee break when doing a complete rebuild of a reasonably large project.
Rendering is broken in Firefox on iOS. Known issue? Otherwise it looks great!
I didn't have a prior belief either way; I was asking out of genuine curiosity.
This is a great book that lots of people should read, and it is out of print... however, this is a copyrighted work. It probably shouldn't be shared like this.
There was a great deal of political change in China during the 1900s. Even though I've read and studied about it I still find it difficult to comprehend how far reaching some of those actions were. I find it refreshing to read accounts such as this but also difficult to put it into perspective with regards to the world we live today.
https://www.npmjs.com/package/webworker-threads
Wikipedia says that the US genocide of Native Americans numbered somewhere between 30-50K people over 120 years, some of those in military conflicts. In comparison in the Rape of Nanking, the Japanese murdered 50-300K. And averaged 300-500K civilians murdered per month between 1937 and 1945.

By 1941 Japan had no reason to believe the US was in any way expansionist. There had been 20 years of isolationist rhetoric from both political parties and almost no public support for intervention in wars abroad.
Play Level 5 of a Mobile Bubble Shooter Game for FREE
The generation that witnessed the birth of the internet clearly put techno-utopia back on the map: private space flights, talk of getting to Moon again and Mars... The info-dense views parent suggests have come and gone (cyberpunk), in part because we got there faster than expected.

Our children will actually have to deal with the problems we're creating today (copyright maximalism, the failure of representative democracy, legislation scaling to worldwide dimensions etc) so I guess their futuristic visions will be again focused on how to get along on this little planet.
Yeah, OP's claims about battery life are manifestly silly. The HN headline makes it sound like the article is making claims about the Watch in general, but it isn't, just that one dev's app.

I understand and take your point about public APIs lagging behind private ones, but in this case it's not that the public SDK is lagging, it's a totally different beast.

The fundamental execution model is the same as watchos 1 -- you don't get to write code that runs in the app process, you write code that runs in a separate extension process and get to twiddle ui elements in the main process using a very limited API.

Which is why if you're trying to do anything dynamic, you have to resort to generating and beaming over images.

Besides this fundamental limitation, the management of app process vs extension process vs network daemons is still buggy (contributed to, probably, by the fact that apple isn't dogfooding), which means it's hard to impossible to make your app stable. I think this has been a huge contributor the general perception that 3rd party Watch apps are slow and buggy.

Obviously, I can only speculate about Apple's motives for going with WatchKit vs exposing native development, as on the iPhone.

My guess is they were very worried about an initial public perception of the watch being "battery life sucks," so they didn't want to open up 3rd party code to run on the Watch. Hence WatchKit and OS1.

Then there was a huge public negative perception about not having native apps, so they rushed out OS2, which has 'native' apps, but still following the (now nonsensical) 2-process model of WatchKit.

I do hope Apple opens up true native dev on the watch at some point.

It won't be "the public SDK getting more powerful over time," though, it will be making a qualitative change to the SDK itself.

P.S. If you haven't and are curious, I encourage you to take a look at WatchKit. I think you will be surprised at how limited it is.

P.P.S. I think Apple may have been better served by doing something akin to the original iPhone model -- just saying, "no 3rd party apps yet, but it's coming," rather than having a half-assed SDK on day 1.
Because the underlying hardware MMU can't prevent one process from accessing memory that don't belong to it.
> Porsche's Mission E is poised to compete with Tesla's Model S

No it isn't. Tesla's Model S is in production, and has been for two years. Porsche's Mission E isn't even near production yet. Even the details about the production car's final range and horsepower seem to be tentative. The only serious advantage the car would have over the Tesla would be the 15 minute charger, which apparently isn't finished yet.
Ah, okay. I think the absolutism of "Will end humanity" is what confused me.
How do you figure out if you're on a deathmarch?
The US was under-militarized at the beginning of the WW2 years, but its industrial capacity was unrivaled and undeniable. Even before its entry into the war, for instance, it was almost singlehandedly supplying the British and Soviet war efforts. The US was supplying nearly 40% of all the USSR's food, clothing, munitions, and military hardware during Hitler's Barbarossa campaign, in the months prior to Pearl Harbor. It was doing all of this while its economy was roaring back up from the Depression, and its output was just getting started. (The US produced about 2,500 warplanes in 1940; by 1944, it was producing just under 100,000 per year.)

Germany and Japan correctly feared the United States long before its entry into the conflict. They feared it not necessarily as a war machine, but as a relentless and massive industrial machine. They knew that, if war with the US were to drag on for a few years, the US would eventually get its shit together and outproduce and outgun either of them by an order of magnitude.
3 Principles for Re-Architecting Subsystems for Reliability and Growth
Submarine Submarine Patent Finding Software Hit by Submarine Patent Claim
Bluetooth Running Cap – AmazingBestBuy.com
US University Deadline Help List – Chennai Floods 2015