skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Because goods and services cost what people are willing to pay, not what they cost to produce. The value of your college degree is based on the institution's accept/reject ratio, not on the quality of instruction (which is nearly impossible to quantify).

It means starting a new prestigious college is nearly impossible. Without excess applicants to reject, a new college doesn't rank well, which in turn means less interest by students and parents. The upper tier colleges can charge pretty much whatever they want without fear of competition.

That also means colleges put a lot more effort into attracting students than actually educating them. As long as there is an excess of people wanting adjunct positions, institutions can get away with a high-low strategey - a handful of well known full professors and an army of starving adjuncts.
Public archive for your Slack community
Architectural Styles and the Design of Network-Based Software Architectures (2000)
I don't get your criticism, what is the problem?

I think naming it this way makes a lot of sense, since OCaml has a lot of <target-type>_of_<source-type> functions, so it is a pretty clever nod to OCamls conventions.
Questioning the PKI chain of trust
Been working on my own RSS reader for iOS. https://github.com/younata/RSSClient/

Pretty much all the internal logic (parsing feeds/opml files) are also written from scratch, which was interesting to do.
Common Lisp:

(subseq
(remove-if
(complement #'numberp)
(butlast list 3))
0 5)

In above Common Lisp code, we use four different functions which do one task:

* subseq sequence start &optional end => subsequence
* remove-if test sequence => result-sequence
* complement function => complement-function
* butlast list &optional n => result-list

> This is known as composability, or the UNIX philosophy. In Lisp a procedure tends to accept many options which configure its behaviour.

Check out the UNIX man for tail, grep, ... to see how strange above quote about 'unix philosophy is'. In reality Unix commands are programs with obscene amount of configuration options, piping data as text or bytes around...

Generally I'm a big fan of the descriptive code which one writes by using keyword options to Lisp functions. I think it beats Haskell code for readability by a mile, since the intent is much clearer in the source code.
As an aside, you just (sort of) implented the IO monad.

The simplest explanation of the IO monad is that your Haskell application outputs a recipe or "execution plan". This output is side effect free and pure. The runtime then executes your plan, producing those side effects.
> "The meanings of words should be immutable"

Since when has language historically worked that way? Ever wonder why we have words with 7 officially accepted definitions? Because usage and interpretation changes with time. Perhaps you're confusing language and mathematics?
Another “critical” “VPN” “vulnerability” and why Port Fail is bullshit
Its testable just not with current tech
Manifesto for Agile Software Development (2001)
No link to play the game?
Those are the media types, which should be standard or at least reusable by others. The difficulty is not technical, it's economics: everyone wants to lock in their users, and this goes against that wish.

When the conditions are right, you do see this: RSS/Atom is a good example.
A large chunk of physics is theoretical in nature. Sometimes you simply cannot experimentally validate a phenomenon, so you instead propose a theory that attempts to explain it using physics. Then in the future, when the phenomenon is testable, your peers determine whether your theory was correct or not.
That's one definition of "typed", but not a very useful one. By that definition _everything_ is typed. That's an interesting metaphysics discussion worth having, but not relevant to explaining Forth to a C programmer.

Vanilla Forth values do not have runtime type information (such as class pointers or discriminator tags) nor does a traditional forth compiler have compile time type information (such as an abstracted understanding of the state of the stack at any given point of execution).

Meanwhile, Factor, a modern stack language has both: SmallTalk-style object-oriented class pointers on every value, and a compile-time stack-effect checker. Factor values have a Lisp-like dynamic typing discipline. That is to say "uni-typed" as "dynamic", or a discriminated union.
Autism in Women Is Misunderstood
I think the downvotes are a little harsh, but I disagree with you. The patch notes are not belittling and don't represent any of the other problems I've seen complaints about re Linux contributions (swearing, bullying, sexism). They're just a bit of light-hearted fun - and they're not contained in the code itself.
No sometimes you can't build a practical, on-demand test. You can predict what future observations should look like.
How about teaching K-12? Plenty of districts are experiencing teacher shortages.
js_of_ocaml is very Ocaml-idiomatic.
Can we please have some perspective here? The business owner's livelihood was not "destroyed". His business failed. That is a risk every business owner takes when they start a business, and even that failure generally leaves them more equipped for their next effort. The article even explicitly talks about what he's doing next, which will almost certainly do well by him. He's going to be fine, and the OP of this thread has done and can do nothing to prevent that.

This kind of extreme overreaction to criticisms of people who have incredibly opportunities ahead of them no matter what they did wrong or failed at is just silly.
Then why ask philosophers? If you don't know what the other side of the moon looks like because rockets have not been invented yet, how could a philosopher possibly help?
Your otherComputation() example doesn't strike me as a clear cut case. My preference (and I agree that this is not required by spec) would be that the checks would be omitted only if the dereference has actually been executed, and not if the initialization has just been declared. Essentially, I think I'd like dereference of a NULL pointer to be defined behavior as far as generated code (the code must behave identically to how it would behave if the load was issued) while possibly undefined for the processor (crashing is valid, but returning a constant would be valid too). The compiler is allowed to reduce many checks to one by assuming consistency, but not allowed to ignore the checks altogether.

I'm pretty sure your snippet invokes nasal demons in all dialects. Dereferencing NULL is a pretty classic case where anything can happen once you do it.

Is the dereferencing itself undefined in all dialects, or is it only undefined if one later "evaluates" the dereferenced value? Or do some define evaluation differently? For example (to my surprise) a comment by 'lkasndasd' on the corresponding Reddit thread points out that &* ptr is never undefined behavior in C, since the address operator and the dereference operator cancel out even (explicitly) if ptr is NULL:

6.5.3.2 Unary arithmetic operators, Semantics, paragraph 3:
The unary & operator yields the address of its operand.
[...] If the operand is the result of a unary * operator,
neither that operator nor the & operator is evaluated and
the result is as if both were omitted, except that the
constraints on the operators still apply and the result is
not an lvalue.
and footnote 102:
Thus, &*E is equivalent to E (even if E is a null pointer) [...]

https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/3xk6zj/the_dan...

http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1570.pdf
theory is by definition a tested hypothesis
The contrast in this article is ridiculously low. So low I assumed it was trying to "dim" the content so I could focus on some modal dialog that didn't load.
GTD is a great managerial schedule. Creative work needs those 4 hour time boxes and singular mental focus.
No, it doesn't require complex clients. There aren't many examples because (1) most developers don't even understand the concept and (2) it reduces lock-in, which most providers aren't interested in supporting.
Idea to prevent drinking and driving
Hopefully this is the right place to post this. If not please let me know a better place.

I have been working on a concept/potential idea to help prevent drinking and driving in my county, Harford County, MD (and potentially elsewhere). I'm currently looking for feedback to see if the idea could gain traction and if it would be used. I am sure there are things I need to clarify on it and possibly change. My goal is to submit it to the county government after I get some statistics from the survey and feedback from here. Please let me know what you guys think of it!

http://freeridemd.com
Cool - just like all cartoon brochureware from my early childhood:

http://paleofuture.com/blog/2010/3/3/lunar-colonies-of-the-f...
I'm down to build this into this project. Build an IRC client in ReactPHP (async websocket pkg) and we'll work towards the necessary abstraction to make the game logic completely secular.
Oh didn't know that, thanks for clarifying, received my ocaml book last week but haven't started.
The problem with derivatives is that they are functionally very similar or identical to insurance. But, because they are sold under a different name, the capital requirements for selling insurance do not apply. Insurance is less scary for a reason. Higher capital requirements, and less concentration of risk, means that insurance can't blow up the world economy.
That's exactly what the article says, the onboarding process has lots of weak points and is not remarkable at all.
Maybe I didn't explain well but In practice I do exactly what you say: I use GTD mostly to list delayed type 2 actions (ex: doctor appointments, bills to pay, etc), long term plans and project briefings. Small actions are listed roughly in a sheet of paper as an extension of my short term-memory and only if I have a lot of them in a given moment.
But you don't have to use any of these newer technologies! Even if it's evolving rapidly, it's also pretty strict when maintaining backwards compatibility.

I wish that were true. Unfortunately, thanks to browser developers' open hostility towards plug-ins like Flash, Java and Silverlight, it is no longer possible to build specific parts of a web site/app that need extra functionality using a range of tools, and instead all you get is browser-native HTML5 and JS and so on. When they work. Which they frequently don't. And if they do, they might not tomorrow, because browsers update every six weeks and break non-trivial applications of HTML/CSS/JS and related technologies all the time.

Until we get back to having a sensible degree of standardisation and stability in the platforms and the tools we use to build on them, it will remain impossible to be sensibly productive when building professional-quality sites and apps. You simply can't do that when you're building on perpetual beta-quality foundations and the goalposts are moving literally every few days in ways that can break your entire app or tools set-up, because you will inevitably spend a stupid amount of time on overheads.
OT but I hate this kind of language. First, "white" is not a color? And much more importantly, so-called "white" people are not white at all. They call themselves white because some racist wingnut in the past designated the color traditionally associated with purity and light with his own race, thereby making it the benchmark and relegating all other people to off-colored aberrations. For example, I am of East Asian ancestry and thus naturally whiter than most Europeans, yet shall call myself "yellow" (or "PoC")!? If anything, it seems to me that blondes should be designated yellow. I could go on ranting but will stop here. Person "of color"... superficially PC bullshit that actually accepts the language of racial superiority and reinforces Eurocentrism. It couldn't be more wrong.
> Star Wars is for children and always have been.

Please notice something about the average age of the people lined up to see Star Wars on opening weekend in 1977.

http://ww1.hdnux.com/photos/21/46/45/4614480/9/920x1240.jpg

There are a lot of non-children there. George Lucas, at some point, decided that Star Wars was entirely targeted at children. He was wrong. From the very beginning, Star Wars has had fans of all ages.
> Star Wars is for children and always have been. If a bunch of adults complain that the films don't speak to them, there is something very wrong with their state of maturity.

As if Disney executives were shocked to find a bunch of 30-40 year olds lining up for late showings of The Force Awakens on Thursday?

Star Wars may be made to appeal to children in addition to the adult audience, but it's pretty obviously not "for children" exclusively. That's especially true of the prequels and now the sequels, which are obviously made to cash in on the nostalgia of people who grew up with Star Wars in the 80s.

If a bunch of adults complain that the prequels don't speak to them, it's because they're fully aware that their childhood nostalgia is being exploited for cash, and the exploiters couldn't even be bothered to do a good job of it.
Most of this is probably due to better libraries and forfeiting the static type system. There's very little that Ruby can offer that imho should allow a program to become shorter than the equivalent C++ by more than, say, a factor of 2.

Bash and Perl might be the only exceptions to this due to their incredibly terse syntax for a certain subset of tasks.
Yes, but Apple is an example of a walled garden that, while not actively working against the web, is definitely holding it back. One browser release a year with very few new API additions is a problem.
Agreed, it's very difficult to get to a completely stateless protocol and still support stateful ideas like authentication.
> You become more worthy through action --- not by belittling someone else.

Hence why the patch submitter was upvoted and the commenter was downvoted.
Excessive abstraction might otherwise be called Enterprise Class Code Syndrome.
Maybe not. It's not completely clear that, for example, string theory could ever be experimentally verified, since it operates completely at a level below all the manifestations of our observable universe. (AFAIK, I'm no physicist)

What technology can you imagine that could ever prove or disprove a hypothesis of our universe being only one facet of a multiverse? The apparatus would necessarily exist within the closed system.
> Physics is an empirical science

Theoretical physics is also very much a thing.

> and should therefore be testable by definition.

That sounds nice but the definition of testable is hard to pin down and changes over time.
No Phd. Just Masters & Bachelor. I blogged about my journey as an Aussie founder in US on a H1B getting a Green Card here: http://www.theroadtosiliconvalley.com/visa/green-card-cofoun...
Feel free to reach out if you have more questions.
I make chips for a living, and if I had screwed up this badly I would fully expect to be fired. Being fired for incompetence is much more demeaning than gentle mockery by people writing a workaround.
Have you tried out The Resistance?
This is a really nice way to put it. I assume you meant to write "liking his essays more than his fiction"?
article outlines that previously NCERT has been available, now they are extending it to CBSE books.
What do you mean by "testable"? There's a pretty big spectrum of "untestable" ranging from requiring too many trillions of dollars to requiring more resources than this planet has to requiring equipment or energy levels we don't know how to produce even in theory to requiring stuff we're pretty sure is impossible like looking beyond the range of the observable universe or requiring more energy than is contained in the observable universe.

And at what point in its development and study do you abandon a theory that nobody has yet invented a way to test?
So is the Rockchip device counting incorrectly, or is someone actually proposing there is something specifically wrong with the Gregorian calendar? Without any other Google results for "Rockchip calendar" I'm assuming it's the former, but if so the level of snark is a bit difficult to read through and the post doesn't make much of a differentiation between the hardware and the calendar model used to correct for its error.
Thanks, those articles are helpful in understanding the real issues.

This next article gives the other side of the story regarding the lawsuit.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/arianelange/alma-lawsuit

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/sites/default/files/custom/...
Atomism is a good example of how philosophy first made up a theory that was later confirmed (in a changed version).

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

You could also derive the Atomic nature of matter through math though, as infinitely devisable sets end up with paradoxes that don't match up with reality (think banarch-tarski)

You can do all this without an idea how to test it.
That's fair enough.

"Although large concrete gravity dams have a theoretical design life of 80-100 years, the actual lifespan of a dam is determined by the rate at which its reservoir fills with sediment. In severely eroding catchments, millions of cubic metres of sediment can be transported annually. The average lifespan of a large dam in China is 45 years. "
http://mightyclutha.blogspot.com/2010/02/decommissioning-rox...

"Many scientists predict that within two decades, rising demand for Colorado River water and falling supply will drop the surface of the reservoir to its lowest level, known as “dead pool.” Because the lowest exit from the dam (the river outlet works) is 237 feet above the original riverbed, at dead pool Lake Powell will still hold 2 million acre-feet of water, one-thirteenth of capacity. "
https://orionmagazine.org/article/calamity-on-the-colorado/

And on, and on, and on. The takeaway is, the silt and sediment that collects on one side of the dam drastically shortens the usable lifespan of the dam, no matter how long the structure itself will be structurally be sound. That's a total engineering fall.
REST isn't a protocol, it's an argument for an approach to systems architecture that minimizes coupling between components while maximizing client reuse.

I've designed and operated several REST-inspired systems over the years, and let me warn you: it's no walk in the park. Engineers that want to "get it done now" must be convinced not to huck everything up to the server as a POST. Founders have to see the business case for every new system. Other departments may have to relearn tools for interoperating with the systems. It's a whole big deal. You can't deploy a RESTful solution and avoid dealing with people.

For your effort, you'll receive a system with well-factored bounded contexts whose self-descriptive interfaces interoperate with standardized tooling and monitoring systems. Projects can be factored into tasks along clear domains and often incrementally delivered into production. Life-sucking productivity projects like the secret admin website can be pushed off indefinitely. Problems will be simple to isolate and reproduce. You'll have the flexibility to rush out brand new client experiences on tight deadlines.

Notice how none of the problems or benefits really involve a particular technology tool or framework or language?

In my opinion, ignorance of the significant cultural factors required for a successful deployment of a RESTful system is the reason why articles continue to be published about how it's vague or difficult or whatever.
Memory use. If it thinks it might finish and need to loop it would hold on to all the frames it's received.
The first movie involves torture, genocide, and a robot-man who likes to choke people with his mind. It's hard to see how this could possibly be conceived as "for children," especially in 1977.

The only thing in the entire original trilogy that I can think of being "for children" is the Ewoks.
Most times an experiment isn't possible/practical to perform, but the experiment could at least be described. The Higgs particle "If we build an accelerator that accelerates particles to energies pf X electron volts, we should see traces of it" must have sounded almost like a thought experiment when the Higgs boson was theorized. Same thing for e.g. the General Theory of Relativity and the Mercury passage that was one of the first validations of it.

Clearly if you propose a theory that requires an experiment so advanced (or circumstances so rare) we can't hope to do it in 20 years, it's still a valid scientific theory. What about 50-100 years? What if it requires technology so advanced it's nearly unthinkable that we will ever attain it? This is when it becomes a philiosophical gray area. It's not a clear cut case what is verifiable and what isn't, since the theory is valid before our ability to verify it.
Unionizing might well backfire, but I'm not sure there are too many PhDs, if quality education were actually the important metric (it isn't, of course).

Ideally college classes would be taught in small groups, but we have classes taught in groups of hundreds to thousands (particularly at large state universities).

This has certainly let the universities hire fewer faculty members, shove the lower-division courses off on underpaid adjuncts, etc., but somehow this economy of scale hasn't made it down to the tuition level. Tuition and fees continue to increase, while the number of instructor hours per student continues to decline. Why is that? All of the savings (and more) have been eaten by the administration monster.

If there was ever an area ripe for disintermediation higher education is it. As soon as someone figures out a good way around the accreditation roadblock universities as we know them are toast.

Most likely we'll wind up with a two-tiered system, with free or low-cost MOOCs (or MOOC-like things) on the low end, and a return to personalized instruction on the high end.

What we have now is McDonalds education at Michelin guide prices. That can't last.
I'm not the GP, but speculating...

The Java code itself probably took less than a few days to write. Java/Spring/Hibernate have no licensing fees (in most cases) and is an industry-standard stack.

I'm guessing the original author didn't write it in Bash because either (1) they didn't know Bash, (2) they didn't know if/when requirements would expand beyond what Bash can easily do, (3) they wanted platform independence, or (4) their team wrote everything else on the Java/Spring/Hibernate stack.

You can argue the merits of all those reasons, but I don't see bloat being profitable as a factor.

The difference in lines and executable size is likely due to an apples-to-oranges situation. Bash scripts seem really light weight if you're not counting all of their system dependencies and if you're writing a program that Bash excels at (such as moving data around).
Because the tenant pays the bill, not the landlord so the landlord has no incentive to fix.

With a proper working housing market the landlord might have an incentive to fix (because people just won't rent from your wrecked place if they can get a better place for the same money) - but given the housing shortage in cities like NYC, even a run down shack is better than sleeping in the park.
You've actually summarized the article in your comment!
I take it you haven't seen the license plate covers popping up all over that basically make it impossible to read a plate from beyond a few feet away?

A representative example off GIS: http://www.v6mustang.com/attachments/dsc00087-jpg.35600/
Cosmology has been an uncontroversial part of physics for quite some time now, and most of its major claims can never be tested in the same that other physical theories can be tested, barring some "creation of a universe in a lab" scenario.
What a fascinating narrative you just built.

Is the message "don't look to them as an example"?
Because they look a pretty good example to me.

You say: "These countries had no choice but to guarantee extensive social services."

On the contrary, they had a choice and has paid well.