skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
One big thing about GTK is how inefficient with space it is. I like that kind of design in Gnome and stuff where the interaction is minimal and the UI is just about presenting content - but it completely sucks for tool development.

Just look at stuff like Gimp and Inkscape - those things are atrociously bad from GUI perspective - huge ugly icons, huge panels with pointlessly large input fields/sliders and other controls - the ammount of space you need to scan and is effectively wasted is staggering.

It's like they want to make GTK+ a toolkit for pretty "two button apps" and "image viewer software with all the controls on the toolbar". Don't get me wrong - I like those designs - but those are of very very limited use - doing anything complex in GTK+ is just a no-go as shown in numerous IDEs/tools that use it. It's just built with the wrong set of defaults IMO. And I have no doubt that with some work you could reshape it to be much more usable - but the thing is most developers don't have that kind of knowledge, time or affinities.

If it integrated into native file dialogs and such I wouldn't care if it "looks non native" - intellij IDEA looks non-native as well - it still looks great. Can you imagine how IDEA would look like if it used GTK+ controls ...
> Functionality of medical care doesn't often depend on the actions of the patient.

Actually, the functionality of medical care does depend on the actions of the patient to do what the medical system instructs them to do. When a person doesn't follow doctor's orders, there is a high possibility that the person in need of medical care doesn't actually get the results they expect.

> All you are offered is the chance to learn, and no guarantees of graduating if you turn out to be incompetent at it.

While I agree with your sentiment and the principle of what you're suggesting, most universities aren't packaging it like this. When you see the ads and you read their propaganda... er, I mean their pretty glossy brochures, they are selling it as exactly that: "Come to XU, get a degree in Y, our graduates have a 100% career placement success." "Get a degree in X, the best value in the country, no other University offers our graduation statistics." They might as well be a play by play from the consumer manipulation handbook. So I can't blame students for playing it both ways. I don't think students are stupid at all, I'm sure many of them know that they're not actually buying the degree, but they're all too well versed in how the media is being used to manipulate things to their own ends, and the student playing dumb to that manipulation and using it to their own ends is a classic example of using the University's own tactics against them.
> And why should anybody care at all about this disgusting and lowly category? They wanted to game the system, they got what they deserved.

Because (at least for me (and everyone I've spoken to)) university is completely useless. I haven't learnt anything in uni I hadn't already taught myself. I am 100% paying for the letters after my name.
There is only so much you can be "taught". In fact the classical approach to lecturing is not the most effective way: the passive student & active teacher roles are ill-suited to achieve a good learning outcome. Research shows that active and self-driven students learn the most but also that they benefit from the mentoring qualities of being able to ask for help and guidance. There's even a word for this: "the inverted classroom".
Show HN: MyShell – Python library for creating shells/menus
> Student loans are quite a peculiar form of a debt. They can be largely ignored quite for a while (or ignored at all).

In the US, "ignoring" them results in a large build-up of interest while you defer payments, and the debt is one of the very few things that can't usually be discharged in bankruptcy.
No, I refuse to buy lottery tickets.

What we are really seeing here is market forces that make the current university structure -- with its emphasis on research over quality of teaching -- a terrible product, just like a lottery ticket is a terrible product. Smart consumers don't spend £9,000 a year on lottery tickets.

At the moment, the universal desire for a degree from an accredited college is propping up these institutions. But that's going to go away someday.

And in the Information Age, I have plenty of "access to an infrastructure" outside of the university walls. There is not a single thing I learned academically from my pricey MIT degree that I could not have learned by reading textbooks and websites on my own. (And most of the time I did learn that way, better than from lectures.) But I wouldn't have been able to put "MIT graduate" on my resume and I wouldn't have gotten the connections out of it. So that's why I went.
I just spent the last 20 minutes compiling my unity project with 5.3 webgl.

It's a voxel game so it's quite small, asset-wise and fits into under 20mbs! This is a huge leap.

The upstart performance feels a bit like a java applet (freezes for a second... not great) but once it gets started, it's performant for my use case.

In my brief test, I only notice one weird thing (the input sometimes got screwy). This is a huge improvement.

Give it another try?
CSO slaps a legal threat to a security researcher and talks about ETHIC? Good job man, gooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooood job.
http://money.cnn.com/2015/12/17/pf/lifelock-100-million-ftc-...
Submodules in git specify the specific commit to be checked out and don't automatically track the HEAD of a branch (unlike go get.)

That's why I include the statement that Go vendoring is useful "(at least once getting to the end where it says that with vendoring enabled submodules are automatically retrieved with go get.. I don't know why they didn't get to that earlier.)"
If you go to your doctor and say "I have a cold, fix it" then you are going to be disappointed no matter how good your doctor is. ("With proper treatment, a cold will clear up in a week. Without, it may take as much as seven days.")

If you go to your teacher (at whatever level) and say "I want to become expert in your field without either working very hard or having a great deal of natural talent" then you are again going to be disappointed no matter how good the teacher is. ("There is no royal road to mathematics.")

If you go to your doctor and she says "I know what's wrong, and you can fix it by taking these drugs and doing these exercises", and you don't take the drugs or do the exercises, it's hardly the doctor's fault if your condition doesn't improve the way you want it to.

If you go to your teacher (at whatever level) and say "I want good grades without actually mastering the ideas and facts" then yet again you will be disappointed.

In your little list of facts, you may notice that step 3 says "The teacher fails to significantly improve the student's understanding". But improving a student's understanding is a two-person job. A student who does nothing beyond turning up to most of the lectures is not likely to do well in their examinations (exception: in some fields, some outstandingly able students may be able to do this, but by definition most students are not outstandingly able). And if that's what the student does, it's not reasonable to say that the teacher is failing at their job.
> And why should anybody care at all about this disgusting and lowly category?

Because that "disgusting and lowly category" is the dominant demographic of users; get off your high horse.

> Student loans are quite a peculiar form of a debt. They can be largely ignored quite for a while (or ignored at all).

Student loan debt is some of the hardest to escape debt in the world, and if you don't get a solid job when you get out of college you can be absolutely crippled by it.

> In most of the areas this is not true.

In software development this is not true, but that's about it. In pretty much every basic job they expect to see a college degree or you're not getting a callback.

Your physician example is also a poor one, as most of what is learned in pre-med has nothing to do with practicing medicine and is just an arbitrary barrier to entry to a professional school.
> Client side decorations give way more space to the actual content than to waste space for an almost empty titlebar.

If Gnome 3 wanted to fix that, it should just replace its space-wasting default theme. And in reality it's a non-issue everywhere else. No other desktop environment even has this debate.

> Very strong language but you don't explain _at all_!

Very easy: Consistency. Look at how absolutely, utterly shit Windows looks nowadays. Word doesn't blend in with Explorer doesn't blend in with regedit doesn't blend it with (the still XP-themed) GPO editor doesn't blend in with the new settings app doesn't blend in with the control panel doesn't blend in with Edge …

My window manager should dictate how windows looks. This works for all toolkits, from GTK2 over FLTK over Qt all the way to Mono's GDI. All, except GTK3.

And yet, it does not have to be a problem! A few years ago, this would have been a no-brainer: When GTK was presented with behavioural differences between desktop environments, it was implemented as a run-time option, configured by the GTK theme to allow desktops to configure GTK to its needs (like "images on buttons", mandatory in Xfce, shunned in Gnome).

Client-side decorations are a compile-time switch. What the hell.

> Regarding mouse wheel support: What basis do you say that 1) it was removed 2) it was made out of spite?

GTK's notebook widget. It was removed for no reason, and users were told to just reimplement it in all applications they needed it in. What the hell.
That is very interesting to hear.

Given the need to retrofit X11 with various mechanisms for fast local access to framebuffer or graphics accelerator, I have never been convinced that the 8 1/2 and Rio window systems, in which all drawing happened through streams of bytes, were complete and future-ready graphics systems.

I wonder if the "everything is a file" principle is actually Plan 9's weakness, a simplistic oversimplification of the nature of OS resources. What if we keep Plan 9's structure/topology (private namespaces, network transparency where possible) but redesign the fundamental file abstraction. Maybe this needs to happen at the level of a new instruction set which provides primitive data block transfer operations which can be implemented efficiently e.g. by memory mapping or dma on local hardware and which automatically fallback to streaming in the network case. Not new silicon but a fast virtual machine which provides network transparency and high performance where possible.
All the critique on Facebooks initiative is and always was just this:

> The message is entirely misleading, as ['Facebook Free Basics'] does not really enable "digital equality" in India.

But instead of simply recognizing that there are different opinions on whether or not price trumps access limitations on equality / benefit scales, the view opposing facebook is simply repeated in different forums, blogs, networks over and over again.

It's really a public policy best practice. Just the same position dressed up differently on a million stages.
Think about this guy being a Russian hacker and selling the ability to access restricted accounts, pose as Instagram administrator and I assume access user's data freely
Thanks. I feel like there should be a corollary to Godwin's Law: "If an online discussion mentions a problem in a non-US country, almost surely someone will point out that the US is not perfect, and is therefore just as bad as the other country."
Note that 2.0 still can be used with GTK. I'm a daily wireshark user and had to switch back to the GTK version - the Qt version is currently incredible buggy - at least on Windows.
> most people (myself included) aren't interested in integrating inferior products into our lives

Sure search results are the most important aspect of a search engine, but it's not the only one. Saying simply that it's an inferior product is very one-dimensional. It might be inferior in one aspect (I too experienced this just after the switch, but not as much anymore), but it's vastly superior in another. As long as the main functionality is good enough, privacy evidently does seem to matter enough to outweigh the shortcomings for a sizable minority.
> Never knew sudo was a openBSD project.

It's not. It just happens to be currently maintained by someone who is also an OpenBSD developer.
I think the issue is using a generically named algorithm name versus using a persons name that the algorithm is named after could be a different story. In the example, Dijkstra is a surname, ycombinator is essentially just a made up name. So it could be conceivable that the estate or a living person could take issue (legal action) with you using their name. If I really wanted that name, I'd check with an attorney and probably get a release from the estate or living person to utilize their name in my company name, just to avoid any issues.
Yeah, Wes looks more credible. FB contacting Synack makes me lose my trust in them for this case
Stan (http://mc-stan.org/) is impressive, but isn't this BLOG language easier to read and perhaps easier for novices to create models in? The marriage of the power of Stan with the ease and speed of implementation of BLOG could create the next generation of probablistically driven experiences by opening up the power to more, and that would be a cool thing.
ZFS supports (and excels at) two necessary things for a good file system: copy on write snapshots and filesystem serialization. ZFS is designed to run one filesystem per user, so ZFS is designed to scale crazy high with little management overhead. It also makes it easy for snapshots to equal isolated per-user or even per-appication backups.

You can do neat things like: create a base filesystem, create a snapshot of it (i.e. "freeze" the filesystem in time), send the snapshot to another system (or over the network for S3 storage, etc), continue modifying files, create another snapshot on top of your first one, now you can send/backup the new snapshot which is only a diff of the original snapshot.

Many other systems besides ZFS support snapshots/copy-on-write layers, but they are mostly hacks and your performance will drop considerably during the "snapshot existing" time. ZFS is different because the snapshot mechanism doesn't kill your performance (unlike the 18 layer Linux file system organization).

"Sending" a snapshot can either be directly over the network to another system to ingest the snapshot (enabling you to stream a new filesystem/snapshot into existence on a remote machine), or you can gzip the snapshot stream and send it off to backup storage.

You can layer your snapshot diffs as much as you like. As long as you have all the diffs back to the original file system, you can re-create any point-in-time snapshot layer from your backup archive.

Longer details with examples are all over, but a good overview point is: https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E18752_01/html/819-5461/gbchx.htm...

Also, it's basically the only sane way to run containers in production since all the copy-on-write and snapshot sending isn't an 8 layer deep hack cake. In Solaris, containers are aware of filesystems at the deepest levels and the networking is aware of containers too. All Linux-based container fads over the past 5 years still haven't caught up to Solaris+ZFS+Zones+Crossbow from 6 to 10 years ago.
The part you emphasized is dependent on the first part of that sentence, however. In this hypothetical lawsuit Facebook's lawyers would easily be able argue that they would not have done anything for the initial exploit or even demonstrating that he had recovered valid AWS keys but that attempting to hoover up data from S3, etc. violated the “good faith effort to avoid privacy violations” part.
What I have seen is that there are many different good explainations of material. However some of these will result in faster uptake by me. The only way the economic transaction of education makes sense to me is to acknowledge the potential of passive learning (books, internet), but to recognize the desire to speed the process. While I can pick up a book on abstract algebra and work through the problems myself to gain understanding, I know that I can pay someone who already is an expert in abstract algebra to package up the mental abstractions for me. Its like using compression for webpages. You could transmit everything uncompressed and the web would work just fine. However we want to save time and money so we compress, delivering content faster and using less bandwidth. The only justification I can see for teachers to exist in a free market is that they speed the process of knowledge aquisition.

Now I support fee schedules based on how much work the teacher has to do the shove the knowledge into the head. If it will cost $X for a fast student, I don't have any problem with the market pricing that same knowledge to a slow student at $X,XXX. Teachers should be compensated for their expertise. However setting the market price is up to the participant, and a contract to deliver the good should be binding. If teachers were bound to deliver the information, then I see average prices being higher becuase of the lemon effect, but that is an entirely different problem than what we have now.
The general theme of the thread seems to be security industry people, like tptacek (or commenters self-identifying as being in the industry), expressing concern with the researcher's actions (while still admitting Facebook didn't handle it well). The primarily negative comments don't seem to have a specific affiliation tied to them. And given HN's demographic, odds are much more of them are developers than are infosec people.

I don't think the person you were replying to was suggesting that any infosec people who fully support the researcher aren't real infosec workers. I just don't think he saw any who even claimed to be.
Results are powered from hundreds of sources https://duck.co/help/results/sources and aided and refined by our community.

We recently added a feedback tool on our results page, so if you find a bad result feel free to share the feedback!
Reminds me of this:
https://xkcd.com/1172/
> [...] but some people just want to say "these don't have a public IP, so it checks off this box" and those people are going to be super happy with this.

Which basically would mean that they are incompetent. A private IP address doesn't really do anything for you security-wise. An IP address being private is simply a convention adhered to by people assigning addresses--that does not in any way guarantee that one cannot send packets to those addresses from outside your network or forward packets from those addresses out of your network, so it doesn't obviate the need for you to filter at the borders of your network, and if you do filter, you might as well filter "public addresses".

The only difference between private and public addresses is that private addresses are potentially assigned to more than one network/machine, which makes it difficult to make those networks/machines communicate with one another in case you ever need to, and to make the world communicate with them because the world in general can't distinguish between the multiple instances of the same address, and thus usually doesn't really know who to talk to.
Maybe it had something to do with the "6,000-year-old temple with sacrificial altars discovered in Ukraine"?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10753820
> > Client side decorations give way more space to the actual content than to waste space for an almost empty titlebar.

> If Gnome 3 wanted to fix that, it should just replace its space-wasting default theme. And in reality it's a non-issue everywhere else. No other desktop environment even has this debate.

Yes, other desktop environments have this debate. In Mac OSX, open any recent app and you'll see titlebars with actions (e.g. play/pause in iTunes, addressbar in Safari, etc.), presumably to compact window chrome.
Yes, very likely. Or language-dependent, as well - in English, "fuck" can very conveniently be placed almost everywhere, and has (IMO) lost a lot of its charge... In Sloveinan, many swear-words carry much stronger emphasis.
Not trivial, but there's a Python wrapper available:

https://github.com/stan-dev/pystan
I'd say good riddance GTK3. I really liked GTK1/2, to be honest. I liked the column-based (unixy) file dialogs, detachable menus that you could use as a poor-mans toolbars, and many minor tweaks.

The API was always horrendous (it still is!), but as user I liked it so I just coped as a developer anyway.

Since the full embrace of gnome, I started to dislike GTK2/3 more and more. The stupidity of file dialogs starting in "recents mode" also for save, to name one. Saving a file again? You see restarting at the top directory, just like in windows. Well, it's because the file dialogs don't have any saved state if you happen to destroy the dialog instance. A tweak that costs literally nothing to implement, but probably "not granma friendly"?

GTK3 is also downright slow. The new theming mechanism might be fancy, but objectively I have some UIs that I left at GTK2 intentionally for lower latency.

I re-evaluated QT4 as a user. The API and developer tools are just light-years ahead.

It's unfortunate that I cannot say I like the evolution of QT5.
Read the article first. (The author is in fact himself a programmer who loves what he does.) The reason he says it sucks is not because it isn't interesting, but because modern programming is using a machine (the computer) to solve problems that that machine was never meant to solve and is actually rather ill-fitted to solve. He says that all the pay-offs and work-arounds we have had to use to get computers (originally a purely mathematical machine) to do what we want is the cause of many, if not most, problems in programming.
Missing license information?
6 Ways to Stop Selling and Get More Customers Buying
>So if I assume you don't like pizza and football because you're female, so instead buy you frozen yoghurt, I'm being sexist even if it's with the nicest of intentions.

If I'm buying my young niece a toy, and see two otherwise equal toys except one is blue and one is pink, is it sexist to choose the pink one? I have to make a choice, there is no non-colored toy.

I only think it crosses into sexism if my niece told me she likes blue better and I still pick a pink one or if there is some reason that the pink option is objectively worse (say if I was buying her a Bumblebee transformer, picking the pink one instead of the yellow one would qualify because the yellow one is the canonical color).
Keep in mind that the situation she recalls, the one with the guy that apologizes to her for cussing, is perhaps not the sort of sexism you would want to try and get rid of.

The way I see it, this coming from a early 20s male (read, shall we say, constantly aware of the opposing sex), is that that attempt to be polite to a woman has nothing to do with her being a woman in tech, but simply being a woman in a social situation.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's pretty normal for a guy/girl to alter his/her behaviour when in a social situation with a member of sex he/she's interested in. Eveb uf the situation in question is supposed to be 100% platonic and/or work related. There is a limit, of course, to how far we can/should excuse this behaviour in people. But I don't think it's fair to stomp on people when they behave different within limits.

Because you _are_ a woman, and it _does_ make a difference, but obviously not in the sense that you'd be any more/less competent because of your gender.
It's like people buying beats audio headphones.
If you Google 'search engine' it's number one.
And the "sexism" debate was stirred by people who were only tangentially involved in Tech, like the PR person "Adria Richards". If you listen to actual women with actual Math, CS, or EE degrees, you'll hear a different story.