skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-lean/heres-why-you-shou...
Exploring the 'Universe' in a Video Game: 13.7: Cosmos and Culture
... what?

This is the life that happens to people - as you said either unfollow or use the firewall approach or dont use it at all. But how does that change what the parent said?
Agreed, the 9/11 hijackers only had knives, and they may very well have been successful even without them.
What does this have to do with "hacker news?"
Cassandra is optimized for write heavy workloads, inverse to MySQL. It also effortlessly scales horizontally and is designed to do so. The use case is clear and definitely different than that of MySQL.

As for the second point, you can store the JSON data in a Redis "hash" datatype: https://matt.sh/introduction-to-redis-data-types

Although MySQL also supports in-memory KV storage with (nearly?) constant time lookups (http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.7/en/innodb-adaptive-hash....), I think Redis is a bit easier to partition.
It's the old chicken-and-egg problem: you build a community by attracting new users, but new users will join only if there's already a good community. It's hard to get a community started.
I wouldn't describe it as a technicality, but more of a carte blanche vacuity. What comprises "the system"? Just about everything. Hence "all system things" is really "all everything things". Such underspecified weasel wording is a chief reason for systemd's status at large.

Even your list involves diverse interfaces ranging from real-time kernel primitives to end-user archives (packages), so again, "system things" is more of a justification for perpetual consumption than anything resembling a mission statement or goal.

(Things that merely wrap syscalls would probably be part of a utilities package anyway, a la util-linux.)
It involves both the First and Second Amendments, which makes it very, very interesting indeed.
Comcast is offering fiber in some places and there is a another fiber company south downtown near the stadiums. Point is offerings exist.
I think that's a mis-diagnosis.

Systemd interacts with a many different external components. OK, that means that systemd developers are exposed to a bunch of different components, and work with them frequently. So, they find a pain-point, and they think to themselves "I could improve this." And, because they are competent developers, and it's free/open-source, they do. Sure, the reason the found a pain-point, and chose to contribute is because of their work systemd, but that contribution isn't in-scope for systemd, isn't associated with systemd. It's just them being good citizens and improving the ecosystem.

Now, remember that a significant portion of the systemd developers are also kernel developers, and have been since before systemd existed. So it's not unlikely that because of systemd, they see a way that they think the kernel could be improved. And they're contributing to the kernel anyway, so why not?

That said, many people object to the kind of design decisions made in systemd, and don't like that that those kind of decisions are spreading to the rest of the ecosystem. This isn't systemd taking over, this is the fact that certain prolific individuals, who are systemd developers, are also contributing to other projects; naturally making the same kind of decisions.
You can copy it as many time as you want, read it concurrently on any device that can read PDF, and you can use it offline. And if PragProg goes bust, you can still read the book.

I agree that it might be a bit ugly to have your name on it repeated but it is quite "discreet" nonetheless,
and unless your name overlaps with a particular perl keyword, it should not impact full text search.
It's strange. There are companies I know that are highly rated and not on that list, though they should be.

E.g., Uber is a 4.4 on glassdoor right now, where are they?
I wish I could use the Swift compiler from the command line instead of having to download a 10GB XCode monster over my shitty 14kb modem that will take a couple of years.

Is there a swifter option?
Yeah, I meant "not long" as in 20-30 years from now. It's definitely got a lot of momentum. But ultimately, we can do better.
Maybe they thought it would be difficult to get an H-1B for a 15 year old. ;-)
D-Wave's computers work as intended and exhibit "computationally relevant quantum effects" but we still don't know whether the strategy they are using will ever yield practical advantages. Other groups (Google, University of Maryland) seem likely to achieve genuine quantum speedups over best-known classical algorithms within the next few years.
I've seen that movie before, it's called The Minority Report.
Delete facebook, hit the gym. Pretty much all it takes.
Happy Chick Emulator Apk 1.4.9 Latest Free Download
AMD definitely did x86-64 better than the ill fated Itanic's reliance on fictional compiler magic that largely would never materialize, but I don't know how much of an edge of provided. It was still too early for 64bit to really provide any benefit and operating system support was weak. At least people I remember saw it for what it was- marketing. It happens that in the long term it ended up being the way to go, but at the time the Athlon64's were coming around there wasn't much point (for consumers at least). By the time 64bit came of age Intel had already buried AMD by a combination of foul play and legitimate innovation.

IMO AMD could compete because the manufacturing and design processes were still accessible enough that they could still produce chips with competitive performance without the massive amount of capital Intel invests in new designs today due simply to diminishing returns in processor performance. Nowadays the difficulty of new processes means that very very few foundries are capable of using the latest fabrication processes and Intel has a stranglehold on them. It's harder for AMD to play catch-up, because there is less slack for them to work with using the next-best-thing. Nowadays, all the money AMD could spend on innovating with genuinely new technology is instead spent trying to keep up just keep up, whereas before they had more breathing room.

There's a comparison to draw with the engine wars in Formula 1 in the 90s. The sport was in major trouble financially, because teams were spending gigantic sums of money chasing small gains in engine performance on the extreme tail end of diminishing returns. The small teams were imploding trying to keep up because while the performance delta might have only been a few horsepower between the big and small teams, those few extra horsepower had a big impact on how competitive you were. And engine development is astronomically expensive on the far side of the returns curve, so additionally even the big teams were outspending themselves trying to keep up with each other before they implemented rules changes to limit engine development.
Redis is actually a very reliable engine to store data, as long as you keep in mind its design principles. (the Aphyr post is great with that). The replication and cluster modes can add additional complexity (but of course mysql master-slave or master-master have their own risks and complexity as well.)

Just comparing a single box vs single box.. this is about 3,333 queries per second if I understand the metric used (200k req per minute). A Redis instance (non-sharded) can handle 50 times that in a single thread, while maintaining sub-ms latency.

Just comparing the two: for this volume of data, and given the low queries per second, I completely agree that MySQL is a better choice since Redis wouldn't scale for cost (of RAM -- it would be silly to pay for that RAM if SSD or spinning disk can handle the load.)

Redis is really nice when used in conjunction with other servers. At Userify (SSH key management for cloud instances), we used to function with a purely MySQL environment, but MySQL couldn't keep up with our requirements (tens of thousands of qps) on low-end hardware for mostly small bits of data. We converted the whole thing to Redis + S3 and are scaling very smoothly, even though we actually encrypt and gzip data before writing to Redis (and we actually write-through to S3, which is mostly invisible except for sequentially pipelined operations). There are circumstances where we could have the lost-write problem, but they are rare in practice and would basically be the same effect as rolling-back a commit.

If I was going to scale the WiX model higher, I'd probably keep MySQL for the blob data (or use S3) and use Redis for lookups, or pursue other paths to keep MySQL in place (or perhaps pgsql). But don't fix it if it ain't broke. ;)

And, of course, there is still a very long way you can go to take MySQL (or Postgres) to insane heights (just ask Facebook), including NDB/MySQL Cluster, innovative caching solutions with Redis front-ending MySQL (the way you used to do with Memcached), maxscale, or additional sharding.

In other words, your design works and works well, and shows the power of MySQL (or especially Postgresql) as a general purpose data store. I really agree that you should always start on the datastore that you think you can get up and running with quickly and easily, and focus on optimization later, because optimization is always possible later within any complex system.

although Redis is just a dream to work with -- unlike some other nosql solutions..
I meant higher-level concurrency. Threads are great and all, unless you're trying to write a network server.

Last I checked, there were no thread-safe async/await primitives, coroutines, standard event-loops/reactors built into the language or the stdlib, though I would be very happy if this turned out to the case.

To preempt: Mio is not an acceptable answer without multi-threaded reactor capabilities and compiler-supported primitives to make the callback interface pleasant.

I would also state that Mio makes me fear that Rust will suffer the same horrible fate as Python or Ruby in this department: tons of fragmented, incompatible implementations with no blessed one. I really want to use Rust, but this is a deal-breaker.
If you have enough inequality in your society it will stop valuing freedom and private ownership. That's the problem.
Examining Employee Monitoring Laws in the US
The principle of relativity is for velocities not morality.
tl;dr
The wings are angled so that air is forced slightly downwards when it collides into the wing. This collision is sustained by engines which force the plane into the air in front of it.
Ask HN: Books about Infocom?
Anyone know a good book or books about the history of Infocom?

Ideally, I'd like something along the lines of Hackers, Masters of Doom, or Stay Awhile, and Listen
Play Slap Kirk
Not so easy when there is no law requiring them to do so. In iMessage, Apple still has the keys but the forward secrecy is enough to exclude it from CALEA because of the way the "encryption" exception was designed. This of course caused FBI to complain, which among other example of encryption made encryption backdoors a political issue again in the first place.
Wasn't Microsoft's M supposed to act much like a blueprint?
> sunrpc, dcom, corba, dbus, xpcom, dci, dcop, rmi, kqueue (kind of), 9p/plumber, ...

why not tipc ? it is already there in the kernel, and seemingly well tested at that. why re-invent the wheel ?
The priors are important. They can result in a dismissal but I'd put priors in context. Was the source unreliable? Was there a specific pattern in the research that led to unreliability before and exists now? Dismissing something because others were screw-ups or unethical would've been a good way to miss out on all kinds of scientific advances that amounted to rather simple, but new, experiments or data.

I'm all about priors being used to prioritize what verifiers focus on or to justify strong controls in event malice or error rates are a concern. Psi is a good example of both. Nonetheless, it's not "extraordinary evidence" I'm looking for as that's almost always an ill-defined term used for dismissal by groups being challenged. I'm just looking for reliable, repeatable evidence that fits the data better.

Let me give you an example that may or may not fit but feels like it does. A common attack in computers was stack smashing where incoming data flows toward stack pointer that controls execution, overwrites it, and causes rogue execution. Discovered and rediscovered in several ways over decades with 90's forgetting what was learned. Let's pretend that didn't exist & focus on mainstream (90's onward) approach. Their theory was that it was inherent and to be countered with either cheap tactics or expensive checking. Cat and mouse game for defence and attack followed with all believing that was inevitable and different people pushing different sides. That's a widely held belief, model, supporting claims, tests, techniques, and so on over thousands of people for decades.

Now, here's how you show they're all fools without extraordinary evidence or fringe science. :) You dust off a copy of the MULTICS security evaluations from 1970's to illustrate how it reduced risk of stack overflows by making data flow away from stack pointer and into new memory where available. Much better design decision & solves root issue everyone ignores. Other systems, esp hardware, tagged memory where they recognized what a stack was and had checks that turned attacks into mere error conditions. The root cause is simple to explain, the fixes are ordinary checks, the tests that they work are ordinary... everything here is simple, ordinary, and totally defies a whole industry worth of systems programming theory and practice. The "priors"... common wisdom & sociological factors here... prevent acceptance or adoption of this with many other tactics remaining. Although a select few radicals in academia and industry did implement it with effectiveness prior data showed.

That's what I'm talking about. We just do science as usual but with a different perspective, test, model, or whatever. Occasionally, one of these contradicts a lot of accepted beliefs or tests because they inherently biased themselves with narrow view or incorrect assumptions the new experiment doesn't have. So, people might re-run the data, check it, attempt to reject it, confirm it, whatever. And I still haven't found the need to define the concept of extraordinary evidence in any of this: just basic science and evidence.
> So given all that, it's tautological from Biblical
> principles that violent people are not followers of
> Christ.

Then, given that all wars are inherently violent, is it your opinion that all wars are unjust?

Would you also consider that every human life that is ended prematurely by another "murder" (capital punishment, war, abortion)?
I'm curious if you'd mind giving a list of those universities, too :P Particularly that last one piqued my interest!
> I mean, why is it irrational to suggest that civilians not be allowed to own powerful weapons designed to kill humans?

Because criminals don't care about laws and then they would become the only ones with guns. A law abiding citizen should be allowed the necessary means to protect himself, his family, and his possessions.

Besides that, they're not necessarily designed to kill humans; plenty of people need guns to defend against animals (like anyone working in bear country, farmers protecting chickens against coyotes, etc.)
Compared to... headsets?

Not sure there's a positive tradeoff in terms of resources. And in terms of chronic physical strain (vision, neck muscles) there may be a negative tradeoff.
There are as many ways of brewing good tea as there are of good coffee (maybe more). I've read this before and it is a good jumping off point for typical English black tea in a teabag. Less good for other types (like green, oolong, or herbal) which should be boiled at a lower temp for most and likely steeped longer, though for some herbals, you just try it out to taste as far as temperature and steeping goes.

For teapot and loose leaf, there are a number of other things to consider like whether the pot is cold/lukewarm and how to handle the leaves, etc.

Equally important: most off-brand teas in the U.S. are low quality. Lipton in America != Lipton in England/Australia. Also, (as someone mentioned) Earl Grey is actually on the milder end of black teas and may not be a good starter compared to typical Breakfast/Afternoon type teas. In short, Green tea is more aromatic, Black tea has a stronger flavor with a nice finish in the better blends. Earl Grey is more in the middle along with "Gunpowder Green".
How FriendFeed uses MySQL to store schema-less data (2009)
The title of Architect only makes sense in enterprise Java or .NET OOP software projects where the architect's work product is UML diagrams and dataflow diagrams, and the implementation of the classes is delegated to a large number of developers.

I think that whole paradigm is a bad idea, but I also think that if you've already decided you're going to use one of those languages and run your project that way, it does make sense to have a person responsible for the high-level system design.
I'm guessing that little caveat won't stop adults from reporting children and taking away their love of programmers.
The sound effect is a nice touch, well done!
The self employed don't have to negotiate with anyone (from a disadvantaged position) to take a small time away from work.
I was about to comment along the lines of "it's possible to write safe, modern C or C++!" but it seems like the issue was actually unsigned integer underflow - which doesn't have the kind of obvious "get with the times!" answer that you would normally expect (e.g. replace char[] with std::vector, use RAII/std::shared_ptr<>/references instead of the chance to use a raw pointer after free, and all that). Javascript avoids this issue by not really supporting unsigned integers.

I always found it interesting how libcurl used float instead of int64 to represent (obviously integral) file sizes. I assume it's for guaranteeing 53-bit integer precision on platforms without int64, but as a corollary there's no such (common) thing as an unsigned float, i'm sure this seemingly-strange decision eliminated a large class of bugs.
I do not believe there are any problems known to be solvable by QC, and unsolvable by classical computers.

edit: I was trying to be polite, but Scott Aaronson has spilled quite a lot of blog ink denouncing remarks like the parent post as utter nonsense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_escrow
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_sharing

It's a terrible idea. The only proposed methods with theoretically possible security would suffer insurmountable side channel issues.

Edit: more https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/97690/MIT-CSA...
> yes, but the Republicans aren't that insane.

I wouldn't put it past them to choose Trump, but either way, the other leading contenders like Ben Carson or Ted Cruz are even more whacked-out. And god forbid the Bush dynasty would continue...

Of the Republican candidates, the only ones I find less crazy than Trump -- and to be clear, I more or less despise everyone I'm about to list -- are Carly Fiorina, Rand Paul, and perhaps Marco Rubio. Fiorina and Rubio because, maybe, they don't actually believe some of the panderous garbage that they say, and Paul because he occasionally expresses some anti-war sentiment (even if it's motivated by his desire to decrease federal spending).
To be clear, finance "for the sake of finance." ;)
This reads like the abstract of a paper. Is there a more detailed paper behind it? This author may be on to something, but there's not enough there to tell.
Steven Levy wrote an excellent book about the first big battle over encryption standards in the 90s, "Crypto". One of the more heavily pushed "solutions" was the Clipper Chip, which was essentially key escrow.
The point is that it's a massive, massive joke for anyone to distinguish themself from this group of people who engage in 'intellectually malformed pseudo-activism' because there are no apolitical stances and being complicit members of societies that shape the world through incredible violence is no different a hypocritical perversion of morality as anyone who rustles your jimmies on the fucking Internet.

So, if I understand your point correctly, it's that the world is so mired in the use of violence, that logical discourse, a respect for facts, and the avoidance of mental patterns of hate is pointless hypocrisy because everyone is essentially either already guilty of being part of the violence or on the receiving end of it. Therefore, there are no moral limits on the behavior or speech of the victims and those who claim to be siding with them.

Strangely enough, such an ideology could just as well justify the actions of groups like ISIS as much as your "rustling of jimmies" on the Internet. And by this, I am not merely tarring your idea by association. The logical structure of it is essentially identical to the ideology of groups who adopt tactics commonly called "terrorism." The magnitude of the evil of one party doesn't give free reign to the victims. That can only lead to an eye for an eye.

Outrage is a powerful force. It can be harnessed for good as well as evil. So whether outrage is being harnessed for good, or whether it has become the "tail wagging the dog" using the cover of a pseudo-activism like a parasitic host to create more outrage is an important distinction. I would posit that a clear sign of this is a concern for morality in the conduct of activism, a concern for morality and fairness in its communications, and a clarity of moral understanding in its teachings. What's more, the immorality of "the oppressors" cannot modify the moral requirements of the activism in a way that renders the activism indistinguishable from the oppressors.

Lastly: From the tenor of your comment, it would seem that my writings have touched a nerve.

EDIT: It further occurs to me -- Activism must inherently contain some measure of extra-legality. Often it contains some small element of violence. Even holding hands to block stock brokers from entering a building for an extra 3 seconds is technically an act of violence. However, these actions are carefully considered in an overall moral framework. The care with which actions are considered and taken must be much like the care taken by surgeons. While it can well be energized by outrage, it is the very last sort of thing which should be ruled and guided by outrage.
Do you have any pointers at all on picking a dentist? I'm currently trying to find one, and aside from Yelp (not very helpful) I have no way to make heads or tails of anyone...
Case in point: Nassim Taleb, The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dominance of the Stubborn Minority

http://fooledbyrandomness.com/minority.pdf
This story compels me to smile.
The article is... premature. The only "source" seems to be the appearance of the "bus1" project on GitHub. The author observed that the primary 2 contributors to this project are Kay Sievers and David Herrmann, who also happen to be systemd developers. This project isn't linked to systemd in any way but that.

The only other contributors are Harald Hoyer and Lars Uebernickel.

Note that Kay Sievers was a Linux kernel contributor before systemd even existed (I don't know about the other 3, perhaps they were too).

Kay, David, and Harald are all Red Hat employees, and Red Hat has mentions in the copyright statements, leading the author to suggest that this is an official Red Hat project. It could be, but it could also be that RH just owns the copyright because it's too similar to what they do at work, but it's cool because RH is fine with them open-sourcing everything. But also "notable" is that Lars is a Canonical employee, which receives no mention in the article.