skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
"I really don't see how it is. If you're running on a desktop platform, you've got a huge exposed surface that is working with raw pointers to proprietary logic. That makes provable correctness a far, far more complex problem."

The point is that C++ itself is damn-near impossible to analyze on the cheap and without much false positives. That's before I even considered the C interface. Then there's C level problems that have been the reason I've opposed it forever. At least there's tons of stuff to draw on in analysing, transforming, etc that code. I'd go with a C subset or Java/Ada subset with high-integrity runtime any day over C++.

"It is easy to implement a smart pointer that the compiler can prove will always do bounds checking before dereferencing. The hard part is proving that all the code that uses raw pointers is doing the same thing."

I'll take your word on the smart pointers doing bounds-checks as I'm not up-to-date on all the techniques of C++ developers. Academics need to do a fresh take on that with assessments vs particular risks & compared to current languages. Meanwhile, most in safety-critical development that I know of don't use C++ because it's too complex and unsafe per them. I know there's MISRA subset and some other stuff. There are people who use it with thorough testing and source-to-object validation. Mostly not in use, though.

So, do you have any resources showing that C++ code is safe and analysable if one just uses smart pointers? And what tools and subset you use to do that? If you have that and proof it works, then that could help a lot of developers using C that aren't aware of it. I'm being serious as much as I am challenging your claim. If you have it, I'll consider it.
Down-right demand? With what authority? It sounds like you're confusing these corporations for governments, as if they had to enforce your human rights..
C++: Partial Support for Expression SFINAE in VS 2015 Update 1
I think that you're taking the emotional tone of my message differently than I intended it because I use the word "unfair" differently from how many people do. To me, it just means "Something not shared by many people; a trait that may gain you certain privileges that not everyone possesses." It's a valueless judgment, because I've already come to terms with business (and the world) being unfair. I could use the word "unique" instead, but chose "unfair" both because unfair connotes privileges (which we are certainly talking about here) and because Peter Thiel has talked in the same terms about what makes business go round.

I certainly don't harbor any sour grapes toward Zuckerburg - that is the nature of business, he was prepared & prescient enough to capitalize on his opportunity and I was not. And it's not like life has turned out badly for me in the meantime anyway. :-)
Kotlin 101 Cheatsheet
Someone was recently credited for an idea that has just been around forever? "Fred George, a former colleague & mentor at Thoughtworks is widely credited as one of the originators of the concept of microservices."
There are other formulations of relativity which aren't nonlocal!! Like the Tangherlini transformations.

I like this quote:

"Alice wants to synchronize her clock with Bob's, so this is how it might go:

At 12:00:00 pm Alice time, Alice sends out a beam of light to Bob, as a signal for Bob to tell Alice what time he has.

Once Bob receives the beam of light, Bob immediately sends Alice a beam of light telling her the time he has.

At 12:00:02 pm Alice time, Alice receives Bob's time, say 11:41:23 am.

At this point, how should Alice synchronize clocks? Clearly, 12:00:01 pm Alice time is 11:41:23 Bob time. We're done.

But we've unknowingly introduced an assumption here, namely that the speed of light travelling from Alice to Bob is identical to the speed of light travelling from Bob to Alice."
> uniquely identified by birthday, gender, and ZIP code

This is not correct; you need to say "full birthday" which includes the year, otherwise the statement is nonsense.
Oh, not watch, but listen. That's not to say you couldn't push a video to each user's account as well, but I'm saying the only thing that would change about (at least in this case a comedian's performance) is you would hear the performer crystal clear and wouldn't have to worry about distractions nearby. The audio of the performance would be broadcast directly to your phone and heard through your headphones.

And why not, you could even add back the acoustic effects into the stream so people still feel like they're listening to the performance in a big hall (or wherever the venue might be).

EDIT: And I think the solution doesn't necessarily fight back against new technology. Rather I think this embraces new technology. Sure it does take steps to protect the content, but that's only because these days it's so easy for anyone with a phone to distribute live shows in pretty much real time if they want to. If comedy becomes a lost art and is no longer interesting to people as a form of entertainment then perhaps another form of entertainment will take its place. But if that doesn't happen I can't see how a popular form of entertainment can "adapt" into something that is "different than it used to be" in order to prevent piracy.

I already think artists have more or less warmed up to the idea that they need to incorporate more live shows into their regimen to make a living at it. But then all of a sudden it's easy to pirate that content as well. It certainly feels like a problem that needs to be addressed. Before long if recorded entertainment isn't making any money, and now live entertainment can't be expected to make any money, what's left besides looking in the classifieds for something else entirely?
Previous discussion- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10651510
Where are the most painful points in getting going with GRPC? (Looking to make this better)
I'd still bet that month/day, gender, and zip code are enough to uniquely identify a very large number of people.
Huh. You seem to think nobody could possibly find comprehensions as easy to read as loops. That surprises me because I think the reason they got implemented in many programming languages is precisely that many people find them easier to read!
This is much better than phone jammers, which some venues tried about a decade ago. The FCC and telcos have been reasonably successful at stopping that.[1] Many (most?) cell phone sites now detect and report interference, so jammers get noticed quickly.[2]

The company that does this will probably lose a few percent of their cases per use, but, like 3D glasses, most people will return them at the drop-off bins.

[1] https://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/jamming-cell-phones-and-gps...
[2] http://www.tbo.com/news/business/fcc-seffner-man-was-using-c...
It's a $250M business globally according to a research firm that focuses on the eSports industry:

http://www.newzoo.com/insights/esports-in-2015-engagement-gr...

That's tiny. If you took a pitch for an eSports startup to a VC with that total market size they'd laugh you out of the office...

So while the 27 million viewers sounds impressive and shows up in the pitch deck of every eSports startup, it's not translating to significant revenue (yet).
Yeah, I am like, hey dude, follow me, I totally want it.

I just came out so that everyone can follow me. No I did not, I just want to buy some milk, all right?

This is just how messed up American mind is about privacy.

(comment to myself, do not comment on hacker news after having few beers and watching LCK)

I gave you a good example - you can not do what ever it is possible to do.

Hey, I have a gun, I can totally shoot you. Boom!

No I can not, every other person gets unhappy (all right, maybe not all of them).

So how hard is it to transfer this knowledge into another situation?

The fact that I am in your range does not mean you can shoot me, right?

The fact that I am visible to you does not mean that you can create a database of all my doings.

There is major difference between, oh, I saw that dude on the street and I have followed that dude 10 years every day, I know every place he have been.
I'm as dumb as they come, so take this with a grain of salt: I think he is describing (a theory about) physical reality. To give you a different perspective: You position his theory of the universe as a network of nodes along with distances/measurements. But if you think for a moment about the void that you have to cross to get from one object to another (like from our star system to another) what is it? If you put it under an electron microscope it doesn't reveal itself.

It's "nothing" as far as we're concerned but despite being intangible, despite being nothing, it has rules and laws that govern matter that traverses it just like every other part of our universe. So what is space itself? What is it composed of? You can't take a quick step outside of the universe to get a look under the hood because you are part of the universe. You can only talk about it in terms of it's rules and behavior–in the abstract.
I think it's the pay-on-demand bit that is crucial.

Heroku is fine for that,
but they spin your instances down,
so the first request may well time out.
Fair enough :) It would make communication easier if you put such creative uses of words up front. I'm not familiar with Peter Thiels use of the word 'unfair', but the doesn't get to creatively re-define the words we use either.

Unfair has a very negative connotation.

> And it's not like life has turned out badly for me in the meantime anyway. :-)

Excellent :)
That I agree with. I meant he doesn't "need to" as something that necessarily "goes" with the job.
L-Theanine Experiment (1 Month)
Care is certainly called for, but the way it's treated goes too far. Waste is a good example. People insist on perfect safety, and not just for today, but insist on storing waste so that in a hypothetical future 10,000 years from now when civilization has fallen and nobody knows what nuclear anything is, the waste is still safe. This is just not reasonable, and does more harm than good.

The problem is that you get people who think you'll glow in the dark if you live near a perfectly functioning power plant, then you get people on the other side who say it's fine to drink plutonium, and both sets of crazies are louder than any reasonable discussion in the middle.
> I have yet to see research that providing a zero-rating service is harmful as you suggest.

"Internet.org provides access to a subset of the internet that Facebook chooses to pay for."

> Last time I glanced through the agreement, Facebook is just trying to avoid paying for HD photos and video downloads, which would increase the cost of Internet.org beyond feasibility.

This could be achieved by choking bandwidth, which would be easier to implement, simpler, and more transparent. Instead, you get stuff like:

"In order for your content to be proxied as described above, your URLs may be re-written and embedded content (like javascript and content originating from another domain) removed. In addition, secure content is not supported and may not load." [1]

Let's be absolutely clear here: Facebook wants to control what content gets into Free Basics and how it's presented, and is willing to make security impossible in order to do it. This enables both censorship and mass surveillance controlled by Facebook and whoever is willing to pay them.

> The users of Internet.org get free access to Facebook as well as the other services being provided and that doesn't detract from the service or make the whole initiative evil.

It's not the things users get access to that I'm worried about, it's the things they don't get access to, and who else gets access to those user's data.

[1] https://developers.facebook.com/docs/internet-org/participat...
In terms of forgiveness: I think the major sin is not shipping anything at all or perhaps worse, fulfilling some of your orders but not all of them. Even if you mess up the enclosures, perhaps you can ship everyone a prototype circuit board? Because surely, surely something physical arrived on your doorstep if you burned millions of dollars.

The problem is usually about being honest where the money went. Backers are mostly not aware of just how much money it takes to build stuff at scale and when the headline is "Bolt-o-phone goes under, $5M raised, nothing shipped" it's natural to say "so what the hell did you do with my money then?".

That and making wildly optimistic optional extras if the funding gets high enough... keep it simple and it'll ship!
You're answering a question nobody posed. The question is, what's more likely to happen: a cofounder leaving in less than a year, or a cofounder being deliberately screwed by all their cofounders and fired ruthlessly just before the cliff.

The answer is: the former scenario is far more likely than the latter.
That would need to hold for substantially all of the "top" outperforming our expectation of a naive person with the same deal-flow.
This is newer and shinier, and not all use cases overlap, but at the end of the day, yes its someone else managing the execution of your processes.

Having worked on GAE in a very large scale, my gut thinks that while this has many different use cases, it will make sense for small to medium size projects, and there will be a tipping point surrounding cost and this will appear less like a silver bullet after some horror stories.

At small scale this may even save money, if you truly don't need your code running all the time, and can deal with latency of starting your code. For projects that think terms of N thousands of transactions per second, the math breaks down real badly. It would cost approximately $2,500 dollars to run a 100ms job a billion times in a month on a machine with only 1.5GB of allocated to this process. You could pay $4350 per year w/ reserved pricing (is there even reserved pricing w/ Lambda? Couldn't find it.) for a c3.4xlarge, which has 30 gigs of memory and 16 cores, which could easily process many more times work than a billion 100ms jobs per month. So lambda seemingly works out well over 6x more than rolling it yourself on EC2 with my overly conservative napkin math.

The other pain point these type of systems produce is that instead of scaling a server here or a few servers there, your thinking in terms of processes, and time and time again this becomes a very rapid way to not only provision more horsepower instantly, but also run up the bill instantly. Code that might have ran on 1000 processes on traditional infrastructure because you had to tune it to fit in that infrastructure (and I don't mean fine tuned, things like, setting your database pool correctly and having basic concurrency), can accidentally be scaled up to 10,000 processes and appear that everything is fine. Unfortunately have seen this quite a bit on GAE and lead to some very costly mistakes.

Processes are harder (in my humble opinion) to have a good feel for what costs what, especially if your scaling up rapidly. Instead of adding a few servers and understanding how that effects the bill, going from 1000 to 1500 processes happens much easier, and you pay for that convenience.

My .02 is that this would be ideal if your either in a hurry and money is no object, or you don't plan on growing past a certain size, or possibly for workloads that are truly not running that often. I think this whole craze of lets replace everything with lambda is going to lead to rapid development (awesome) at high prices if your project takes off, which will leave developers rushing to get off of it if/when their project needs to scale with financial constraints. (not awesome)
There are many marginal college students in the US who would be far better off becoming plumbers, electricians, or auto techs than going to college, IMO.

Problem is many people look down on these blue-collar skilled trades and college is seen as the way up.
a counter argument.. i went to a ucb monday night, aziz was on the ticket which is what prompted the memory, and i understand comedians do free shows, or favourite haunts, to work material

i once saw mitch hedberg do a 10$ show nearly from a notepad and made it part of the joke, taking notes on audience reaction then noting the reaction to the notes

at the ucb show there was a comedian i was unaware i was familiar with named josh fadem, he did a bit on werner herzog pitching a hidden camera show that i laughed over for three comedians after fadem's set

i wanted to remember the nuance of the bit and scoured the internet but was unable to find anything substantial, i did find this(o) early in development version of the joke but it pales in comparison to the complexity and construction of the one i saw him do live

i really wish someone had a phone on him that night

(o) https://www.rooftopcomedy.com/watch/WernerHerzogsRealityShow
If people only watch/read stuff because it's "entertaining", that's already a loss to culture and democracy.

Especially since entertaining gets all the more Huxley-an and Kardashian standards all the time.
No, I don't think that's it. He is saying that physical reality is literally a network of interconnected nodes at its fundamental level. I think you're still assuming that these graphs have to be embedded in some space to be real.

If we get fundamental enough, we can go below geometry, into algebra.

For a less abstract example, what's the radius of an electron in modern physics?
I wouldn't walk away from the deal. They're just concerned you'll fail to deliver and also don't want extra hassles dealing with attorneys, just like you. And you're concerned about not being paid. Ask for a deposit, do a great job, and don't worry about it.

You're both in different states. Each of you want litigation/contracts resolved in your own states. One of you must budge. How's this a red flag?
cool concept. interested in seeing the results.
Before that, it needs to be asked if it is even rising sea level in the first place, as opposed to land subsidence.

"It looks like Kwajalein is affected by a local subsidence induced by building construction (or some sea level “correction” in order to have it going up).
The Majuro records, for sure, contradicts any (sic:"and") acceleration claim; even a general “rise”.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/31/the-marshall-islands-a...
Thanks for your reply, I rushed my initial post due to the fact that I had to be out somewhere else.

I am finishing Junior High, this year and the job traineeship was offered to me over the two years at Senior High.

MIT, if possible. An interesting job with something to do with computers (and possibly law).

That is partially why I think it would be good do it, for the experience and the right to differenciate myself from others.

Not myself or my family for sure. Possibly my peers and edocators, but rather I hope it would help me get into 'the field'.

Thanks!
Venture Capital Disrupts Itself: Breaking the Concentration Curse [pdf]
You can describe things in two ways:

1) Decompose into smaller components and put back together
2) Look at it's structure

It's the diference between describing a cardboard box and a cube (platonic solid).

To describe the first, I have to describe what is cardboard, what is cellulose, what is a cell, what is matter, ... all the way down, and then I hit a wall.

To describe the second, I just need topology.

This definition of space is that space "just is", resembles a network, and that the "stuff" in it is just how we perceive particular local structures.

The network is only a geometrical analogy, there's no "space" between the nodes because the nodes don't represent anything concrete. You can describe the same network algebraically, but then you're left with no pictures to illustrate the article.
He was asking about Hetzner, he has a single server and obviously doesn't operate the network.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10651510
I don't hold the idea that it's the news sources fault. Even with all the crap on mainstream media, there are more than enough excellent sources (including free) and a lower than ever barrier to access them.

So, I consider it like I would consider a lack of caring of the environment, or for helping people in the streets, or inversely, an increase in racism etc: as the fault of the people not caring -- not of others that failed to convince them to care.

The #1 thing for a citizen is personal responsibility.
Court appoints 5 LotR experts to decide if comparison to Gollum is an insult
Enough time and volume should eventually show whose truly good (statistically).
If the universe is a simulation, it would have to be on an analog computer which doesn't have a clock speed as such. Or a digital computer running sufficiently tiny time steps to be indistinguishable from an analog computer. In either case I don't think c is directly related to "clock speed". I'm not a good enough physicist to tell you what it does mean. That's my feeling anyway.
No, it would not work. The tensile force is going to go up so high that you'd have to overdesign it to the point of being impractical for normal use and even then it would have to be made out of un-obtanium. If you compute the forces in a hurricane acting on any appreciable surface area acting first on the internal structure of the kite (to transfer the force to the tether attachment point), then to the tether itself (and hurricane winds change direction and strength very rapidly) and finally from the tether to the ground station (with the edge in contact with a gimball (sp?) so the kite can rotate around the attachment point) you're looking at something that is no longer economically feasible or something so heavy that it will absorb a fair amount of the power generated just to stay aloft.

Hurricanes will happily destroy structures many times stronger than this kite that are anchored in concrete, will blow 30 ton trucks over and in general are a menace. To harvest their power is akin to trying to set up an electrical plant that is exclusively powered by lightning or solar flares.

Yes, there is power there, no, we have no practical way of harvesting that power, the best we can do is to try to either get out of the way or to shed it in a way that it does not do damage.

The events are too rare, to unpredictable and too powerful to be practically harvestable.
I doubt that's the rationale. No offense, but you sound like someone who only knew about him because of his show. He's been doing a lot of different things and I would say that arguably his career is doing better than ever.
EDIT: Sorry, I made a typo, it is a senior high traineeship. Apologies.
Quoting from Robert Heinlein's "Friday":

> At one time there really was a man known as "the World's Greatest Authority." I ran across him in trying to nail down one of the many silly questions that kept coming at me from odd sources. Like this: Set your terminal to "research." Punch parameters in succession "North American culture," "English-speaking," "mid-twentieth century," "comedians,", "the World's Greatest Authority." The answer you can expect is "Professor Irwin Corey." You'll find his routines timeless humor.

I did not find this to be true. Then again, many at the time were also perplexed about his humor.
Roommate gets pissed cause hot chicks are coming over
NYC Restaurant Inspections| Whats cooking in your favorite kitchen
I agree, its totally out of control. Kind of ridiculous when you go to a concert and the majority of people are watching the show on the screen of their phones rather than directly
Wow. That has a lot of potential interpretations.
Yikes! I'm a bit disappointed and slightly surprised that there's no discussion nor consideration of research ethics appearing anywhere on that website.
A Land Without Guns: How Japan Has Virtually Eliminated Shooting Deaths