skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I think the fairly simple answer is that you don't stack them or allow for any interference at all. If your kite goes up to 250m and has a 1km tether you space all your launchers on a 1km "radius" hexagonal grid. Your wind farm takes up more space but at first that's no problem at all. You could probably make it work at a 500m hexagonal grid but there's a small amount of risk associated there.

Ultimately though one of the benefits of these things is that when they're not in use they're stowed. And that means people might be a lot less NIMBY about them. And then you might never really need to worry about all the complexity.

It's probably a pipe dream to suggest that people would be accepting of them, but stranger things have happened.
I believe it's 500.
I agree that separation of form from content makes life amazingly simple, that's one the main virtues of LaTeX. :)

As I said before, preferring Markdown and YAML solely on account of syntax seems fair to me.
What an odd comment. Reads like a spam for "zillionize".
The URL points to a description of and link (http://www.cs.wayne.edu/~severe/fse2014/) to the software.

The paper itself is at http://www.utdallas.edu/~lmorenoc/research/pubs/fse2014-aren...
I agree. I was using "List Comprehensions: Now In Color" as a working title but I thought that was too nonsensical. It was actually the colorized code and not the gifs in particular that made me think "visual".

Sorry for the misleading title!
Drawing a parallel!
What the hell is he talking about?

Is the summary of that article something like "this one VC didn't buy shares from me but then I got rich so fuck the haters 99% of you are going to be rich too" or something?

The article is like a word salad.
Dumb question, but rather than needing extra software (overlay networks) to manage the ip addresses, why not assign 100 private ip addresses per host and have Mesos pick one of those ups to assign to each container on the host as needed.
MS PowerPoint TOC algorithm
Not really - to anyone who doesn't possess the certificates used in MITM, the SSL traffic is just as impossible to decrypt as before.
HN should declare this off topic.
Right. He's saying that Twitch is a 1%-er now, but even 9 months before their deal they were in the 99%, aka VCs are clueless sometimes.
I'm pretty sure that the "expression-lambdas" were inspired by Haskell, where you get a lambda simply by writing an operator with one or more missing operands.

In Perl 6, detecting that an operand is "missing" isn't possible due to the existence of prefix/infix/postfix operators with the same names, so it expects a "whatever" star in place of the missing operand... :)
Is it really that hard to grasp?
There's nothing preventing you from writing analogous data structures in any language.

No one wants to admit that their language choice is because of the cultural norms in their language community, but if you can hide some complexity behind a language construct, you can hide the same complexity behind a function call. It's just a question of how much of the work required to do that has already been done by the community.

You're just not going to win the "my language can do x more concisely than a function called x in your language!" argument. You're better off with "this is easy and my language and you'd have to write a function to do it in yours."
The story probably isn't true:

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140829-the-secrets-of-fake...

Banana flavor is a pretty simple compound:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isoamyl_acetate

So the Gros Michel containing more of it (or having a simpler flavor profile) probably explains the closer flavor match more than any effort devoted to matching the flavor up with the variety.
27 million people watched the League of Legends world championship[1] which is on par (or better) than MLB & NBA championships. It's pretty clear eSports is going to be huge. Having the biggest streaming site/brand will be valuable and doesn't seem crazy in that perspective.

[1] http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/page/instantawesome-leagueof...
FWIW there are 9.49 million Internet users in Kazakhstan according to wolframalpha.com

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=number+of+internet+user...
Relevant:
https://xkcd.com/538/
Here's a rationale: Low level radiation stimulates the immune system, which helps prevent cancer. Think of the children.
At least right now there aren't many other places that have as much data flowing through them, or at least as much almost unrestricted access to data (for example, Amazon has plenty of data but very little legal access).

And possibly, though for privacy reasons in a much more filtered down form (see the word2vec Google News dataset). I find it unlikely for private data though.
This is a classic debate in the philosophy science. Should theories describe the world, or merely make predictions about it? Because no one these days believes that quantum mechanics really describes the world, we live firmly in the realm of theories being things that make predictions.

The existence of the atom, however, is not what is being predicted. A theory should predict the sensor readings of particular instruments during particular experiments. Those sensor readings are what is real; "The Atom" is the abstraction.

The very idea that "things exist" is an abstraction. A thing exists if we can model it, and that model corresponds with reality.
Why should I use this instead of Jabber/XMPP over TLS? Can someone sell me on this that knows how both work?

Thanks!
Probably large part of it is an America vs Europe thing.
No, it is simply very hard to make the call.
I love this sentence, cracks me up:

"They are also followed medically more closely than just about anyone on Earth: they don’t indulge in regular fast food."
Agreed! Haskell's list comprehensions look even more like set-builder notation: https://wiki.haskell.org/List_comprehension
I think there is another good book like that. It's called Mein Kampf or something. Can't remember who wrote it.

Another fun factoid. IQ isn't static and is a fairly useless measure of intelligence.
Yes, excising discrimination from processes is a feminist practice. That's not sexist, because feminism is about subtracting, not adding, discrimination based on gender.
Draw Fractal Plants in Elm
You are confused. This is exactly what pinning defends against.
Frankly, comprehensions are one of Python's worst features. Some properly implemented functional syntax would be both more readable and concise. Plus double-nested (I'm not sure what you'd call it) comrpehensions seem to be backwards. Rather than [ingredient for ingredient in recipe for recipe in cookbook] it's [ingredient for recipe in cookbook for ingredient in recipe] which makes it sound as if there's only going len(recipe) number of ingredients in your list. Plus it's so verbose and horizontal, half the time if you want descriptive names you're gonna write something so verbose it doesn't even make it that much more readable.
Wolfram is proposing a radically different way of interpreting the universe. His main argument is that if his cellular automatons can achieve emergent behaviour similar to real physics, then it is evidence for it being the underlying mechanism in the universe.

For a (really long) discussion on how this simulation parallels physics, check his book, A New Kind of Science, out.

Then maybe you would want to read Aaronson's review of it, just for a balanced perspective.
I would guess that the cost of running Twitch is much less than 1/4 of the cost of running Washington Post. You have a few servers and a handful of programmers vs. hundreds of reporters.
There's got to be a point where prices are high enough and job prospects are poor enough that people will finally start questioning the "get a degree" wisdom.
Great Clojure feature:

user=> (source even?)
(defn even?
"Returns true if n is even, throws an exception if n is not an integer"
{:added "1.0"
:static true}
[n] (if (integer? n)
(zero? (bit-and (clojure.lang.RT/uncheckedLongCast n) 1))
(throw (IllegalArgumentException. (str "Argument must be an integer: " n)))))
> to compile the Python lxml library.

If you have to do it very often, I've had good success with keeping compiled python wheels around.
> I think the fairly simple answer is that you don't stack them or allow for any interference at all. If your kite goes up to 250m and has a 1km tether you space all your launchers on a 1km "radius" hexagonal grid.

That would rule out a great many locations.

> Your wind farm takes up more space but at first that's no problem at all.

A regular wind turbine has a small base and has only one active component. To have a more complex set-up with many more moving parts including the nacelle itself moving around in 3 dimensions is a significant complication that should be offset by a gain, it should not lead to an extra loss.

> Ultimately though one of the benefits of these things is that when they're not in use they're stowed.

Windmills are sited such that they are rarely idle, it happens but that's money being lost and a very large amount of the pre-work in siting a wind power park is to make sure that idle time is as low as possible. Yes, it is nice they're stowed when not in use but that's a situation you want to avoid.

> It's probably a pipe dream to suggest that people would be accepting of them, but stranger things have happened.

If the windmills around here are any indication: prior to the installation there is a lot of friction, reaching a peak at the moment the foundations are poured. Then there is a kind of reluctant acceptance and a decade later people say they would miss the machines if they disappeared. It is an odd progression, I guess people are simply against a change for something unknown.
> Any competent Clojure programmer would likely have known most of the Clojure core functions by heart

I really like Clojure, but I've always found the relatively huge set of core functions to be a major barrier to entry. I always have this nagging feeling of "there's probably a core function I'm missing to make doing this or that easier", and end up spending a lot of time poring over documentation instead of just programming. Maybe that's just how it is, and the answer is to push through it until you know the functions better, but there's something to be said for shipping a language with fewer, simpler, more primitive operations.
"I tried to sell some of my startup shares for below what the market turned out to be willing to pay for them, but people said no because it wasn't trendy and it sort of hurt my feelings, but then I got rich so haha!"

I feel really sorry for you bro. If you want some consolation you're free to PM me and we can totally hang out and you can buy me a house.
That's a high single-event number. Do the numbers sustain across the year? MLB and NBA have over 100 events per year (considering all the days games as one daily "event")
You missed a closing paren :)
Having worked at LG for 3 yrs, I'm skeptical this change will come easy. But 'cultural change' is almost always mandated from the top even at US tech startups. From Amazon to Zappos, culture is set by CEO.
Content creation vs content distribution.

While both companies operate in a thin margin environment, content creation is not easily scalable but content distribution is.

Also, shrinking market vs growing market.

Besides, value to society and value to investors don't always go hand in hand.
CodeDay Fall 2015 Results
That's kind of what generator expressions are actually :)

https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0289/

You can pass them into anything that expects an iterable. That's pretty much the same since iterable types will frequently consume an iterable in their constructor.

For example, here's a "tuple comprehension" (really just a generator expression passed to a tuple):

>>> tuple(x for x in [1, 2, 3])

Same thing passed to list and set constructors (which you'd never do because we have the special comprehension syntax for those:

>>> list(x for x in [1, 2, 3])

>>> set(x for x in [1, 2, 3])

I explained these in a very slightly different way in the linked webinar I linked in the post: https://youtu.be/u-mhKtC1Xh4?t=35m05s
Privacy-preserving contact discovery and obfuscation of a message's metadata (what Tor can be used for) are pretty much orthogonal issues:

The first case is about finding out who of your contacts uses Signal, too. The way it's done in Signal right now is described here: https://whispersystems.org/blog/contact-discovery/.

The second problem is about whether anyone gets to see who is sending messages to whom, e.g. by tapping the wires or running the central server all messages are being routed through (for instance, Signal uses such a server).

In both cases, your social network might get get exposed depending on what data is exposed exactly (IP addresses, pseudonyms, …) and what the attacker can infer from it (your name / home address?).

Let me know if that helps.
Clearly this is a long game play.
Of course not. Some people really like their illusions.

But seriously: Having been part of a community that thought their language made them "super-programmers" I can say this: It's possible that on some level, the language does give a significant tooling advantage. However, this is often going to be completely swamped by various soft/human factors.

A baroque quartet consisting of very mature musicians who work supremely well together is still going to produce far better music than a "super-group" of ego-driven martinets who secretly despise each other. It wouldn't matter how technologically advanced their instruments were over the 1st group, even if those instruments played themselves.

It's the group that truly gels, has healthy interpersonal dynamics, has relevant experience, and healthy practice habits that is going to be the better musical group.

Resolving the analogy left as an exercise.
That's the most clear use of 'fuck you money' that I've ever seen.
Justin is saying that VCs understand what's hot now, but are sometimes bad a predicting future value. So to founders, if you're creating value, keep going even if VCs don't see the light yet. They'll come around.
For most applications, either can work. They both have to be managed correctly.
Trying to explain behavior with science is problematic and susceptible to the prejudice of the researcher, but you don't need to interpret data to know that parenting matters - it is a bare metal fact of life. Many animals can't even survive without solid training from their parents.
At the time he attempted to sell his shares, Twitch had raised $42 million, and had been valued at around $100 million several months earlier [1]. He is complaining about the gall of VCs not to buy his shares at a price that would imply a valuation of less than $194 million (and presumably not that far below). I do not believe that this is a good attitude for entrepreneurs to internalize.

[1] https://www.pehub.com/2014/08/amazon-pays-970-mln-for-twitch...
I'm a hardcore imperativist right now, so don't take this as authoritative, but here's my understanding of how that works:

Think of your data as one reality in the set of all possible realities. None of them exist or don't exist, they'll just receive human attention or they won't. Instead of an inbox with an ID and a current state, you just store events that happened and a user might say show me the end state of the timeline that started at event d79se5k. They might also ask you for the timeline starting at a different point.

There's no "current state". You're just ready to answer questions about hypothetical realities. And while some realities are more likely to be computed (and cached) that's only because they correspond to some key facts that a human is going to look up.

Put another way, imagine a soup of unrelated facts. Your code is a way to project those facts into different mathematic spaces. You never just say "what's the current state" you have to actually write out specifically what you mean as a query.

Sorry for the vagueness. I'm just putting out there my fuzzy understanding until someone else can write something better. :)

I'm really interested this approach, and I think a lot of data should be immutable. Sadly, a lot of people are treating immutability as a religion these days, which causes problems when computation is better suited to imperative structures.
I really don't think that was the message he was trying to convey. If anything, he was trying to inspire other startups/founders that feel unappreciated/underestimated.
Sorry, no:

Chrome does not perform pin validation when the
certificate chain chains up to a private trust anchor.
A key result of this policy is that private trust
anchors can be used to proxy (or MITM) connections,
even to pinned sites.

-- https://www.chromium.org/Home/chromium-security/security-faq...
> "You still get single points of failure. You still get corruption. You have just jettisoned your ability to deal with any of them effectively."

Right, let's look at this.

Corruption exists because people are driven by their own self interest, and that self interest can be guided by those who can shift the personal priorities of the individual. If a person is 'bought off', their actions may change to be in line with those that bought them off.

How many people need to be bought off in order to corrupt the decision making process? Enough to have a majority of the decision makers under control. Compared to a representative democracy, is the number of decision makers smaller or larger under direct democracy? It's larger. That would suggest corruption is harder to maintain.

There's a little bit more to it though. Corruption can take different forms. Corruption based on material wealth may be effective with representative democracies, but even if it doesn't scale, the more insidious form of corruption is corruption of the mind. To guard against this, you need 'inclusive, informative' news media, as it's vital to be able to expose lies and misinformation.

Direct democracy with an effective news media is more resistant to corruption than the representative democracy with corporate media that we have now. If you disagree with that statement, let me know.

> "You're replacing an explicit set of power structures with equally explicit rules with a set of implicit structures with no explicit rules."

> "Consider how Digg succumbed to organized influencers. Ask yourself how your system is immune to such things. Hint: it's not."

So your argument is that implicit power structures are just as problematic as explicit power structures as you can still have a small number of actors who seek to game the system to their own advantage?

> "Excuse me. An identical balance for all individuals. What is good for one person is incredibly bad for another. You're imposing uniformity where uniformity is unsuited."

You've just repeated what I said with different words.

> "Apologize to the dead created by people like you first."

I find that insulting, quite frankly. As I've said before, none of those societies you're referring to were communist societies, nor did they start out as communist societies and devolve into something else. They were never communist to begin with, and did not make efforts to become more communist as time went on.

Here's an analogy that should help explain why that statement is misguided. Imagine I'm a Muslim, and this is just after the Paris shootings. I can state that Islam is a religion of peace, and so state that the people who carried out the attacks were not true Muslims, regardless of what they claim to be. Would your response still be 'Apologize to the dead created by people like you first.'?
With some minor assumptions, my assertion would be correct. Yours needs a lot of strong assumptions to be mathematically feasible.

Basically, you are saying, when the max of a sequence is increasing, the mean/median stays or even decreases. That would require that the frequencies on the lower end to increase much faster than that on the higher end, which is certainly not the case. For example, the number of C programmers is growing faster than the number of Java programmer today? No one would think that's correct.
Here's another layer of complication.
Gladwell twists the truth a bit to make a good story, however AskAKorean also twists the truth a bit to make a good refutation. Based on the transcript that AskAKorea posted, it's very clear that the first officer is acting deferentially to the pilot. Specifically, the first officer uses polite speech with the pilot, and the pilot uses familiar speech with the first officer. This indicates quite a big social status gap. As an example, in my company (I am working in Korea), neither my manager nor my manager's manager uses familiar speech with me, I'd have to go up 3 levels for that to start happening. What Gladwell mentioned in his book about hierarchy does not feel exaggerated, and there's likely a large grain of truth to Gladwell's representation of what happened. Also, if you look through AskAKorean's previous blogs, you can notice a fairly nationalistic streak in his posts, which may explain his strong opinions regarding Gladwell's assertions.
Sometimes it's hard to make the call. Sometimes VCs are just stupid.
I'm not jesting. They mention it on the page.
I am not sure that works. Putting the MITM certificate in the trusted certificate store will make Chrome allow the interception.
Claims on contested holdings in Cuba
Dijkstra's ideas (not just his contributions to math) survived despite his arrogance. The difference is that Wolfram's ideas are not testable.
He's talking about mobile apps pinning the backend certificates, not HPKP.
Would love to see a series of good curves:

(1) of all startup's started by people who working in the industry, quit FT jobs to do startup or put in serious moonlighting hours in startup; total earnings - opportunity cost, annualized:

(total income from startup - opportunity cost of hours worked on startup) / years spent

Maybe this data-set should be split further into bins of founders whose last title prior to startup were only individual contributors, or were executives, their age and pedigree etc.

Would love to see the distribution + standard deviation say, for computer programmer who quits the job to do a startup would gain or lose in earnings per year.

(2) of funded all startup; the alpha of investment: total return on investment - (S&P500 Index return in duration of funding to IPO/exit) / (S&P Index Return)

Maybe this data-set should be split further into bins of people involved: founders, first 10 percentile employees by join date, second 50 percentile employees and so forth...

Would love to see the distribution of return on investing in startup's as an investor vs. investing in S&P500.
If all you have is cellular automata, everything starts looking like a network.
Thinking about your legacy is "ridiculously ego-laden"? I'm having the trouble seeing how it's "ridiculous" to reflect, in the later part of your life, on what your contribution to the world may have been.
To make it even more clear, you can store the generator in a variable and pass it around:

>>> x = (a*a for a in range(3))
>>> type(x)
<type 'generator'>
The haters-gonna-hate philosophy in Silicon Valley is starting to become a problem.

There's a lot of luck involved in making a startup, and startups can fail for any number of reasons that no data can predict. The notion that if you do your best, you will succeed, is dangerous to naive entrepreneurs.