skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Another factor in favor of legal AI is that legal documents have much more restricted grammar than standard English text, leading to less ambiguity.

That's...really not true. Legal documents pretty much admit the full scope of the English language -- both grammar and vocabulary -- though there are constructions and vocabulary that have special meaning in particular contexts within legal documents that would either not be found in English outside of the legal context or would have different meaning. (And ISTR seeing cases where construction within the particular documents led to significant questions of whether elements that exist both in general English and in the specialized language of law but have different meanings had their typical legal meaning or their more general meaning in the particular document.)
No I haven't. I just found it very odd that that was the conclusion drawn from this (even if it's only called a hint), while not saying anything about how bad those psychiatrists were.
US power grid vulnerable to foreign hackers
Likely not. My brief digging into trying to find a definitive document on what is 'standard SQL' led me down a rabbit hole and I gave up on working out whether it was or wasn't. The likelihood of having to change to a different provider on any project that has settled on SqlServer in my experience is fairly close to 0. YMMV
They're living at the bottom of Lake Mead?

(cue the Yorkshiremen sketch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe1a1wHxTyo )
I heard Rust can be pretty efficient?

OTOH a heavily restricted C, closer to assembly than to Rust, could still be useful: it would be close to the metal but still preserve portability. Making such a language a strict subset of C would additionally help early porting efforts.
Sure, you're right, we can reframe this and just say you're buying prepaid credit cards using cash/bitcoin. That could take care of the payment info anonymity. Not sure of scalability for mainstream but it could work.

The remaining issues of scale/tech remain though which is still a big problem.
My understanding was that with optimizations off, clang/gcc were pretty "boring". Is a whole new compiler really required?

Personally, to fix these problems I'd lean toward finding a new language instead of a new compiler.
> I'd point to Gulp and Rails' latest as a sign that there's more work to do here.

If you want to throw them into the same category, then sure, there is different stuff happening. But Gulp is even further away from something non programmers can use.
Okay but have you considered that people who seem like fully functional adults can also have autism and that they are fully functional by finding coping mechanisms to work with their autism? That is a thing that happens. To assume you know better than someone about their own mental scape because they 'seem fully functional' to you seems like a position without actually believing or listening to other people's experiences.
> This is textbook NIH syndrome.

I'm not saying you shouldn't use S3. You should just make sure that it's not the only service you have the only copy of your data hosted.

>Rather than looking at the relative probabilities you look at something from an ideological perspective.

No, I'm looking here solely at the risk of putting all your eggs into a basket you don't control.
Then he would filter himself.
But does it use an open source toolchain? Also, where does it say that it runs on ICE40?
" Claim that all we need is for some particular "undefined"-catching tool to be widely used. In fact, these tools are full of false positives and false negatives; at best they catch a few limited types of "undefined" behavior, not changing the big picture."

Question: why can't existing C compilers clearly indicate when they encounter undefined behavior?
I should add that I'm sharing this because I wish I knew about this before I took on a oil tanker full of student debt to go to a "prestigious" US school only to leave before graduating to do a startup. Startupers, consider this option on your own time for (relative) cheap from a prestigious uni.
Why do you think a car loan is unwise? If I can borrow $10k, that's $10k I can do other things with, such as invest, or go on a vacation. Even a not-great rate of 5% over 3-years, that's less than a thousand bucks more expensive than paying cash, and it's spread out over three years.

I don't mean to imply that getting a loan is always the right idea for everyone, but I think categorizing it as always "less financially wise" is wrong as well.
It took a minute for me to accept it as well, but once I did the queries just look so much better.
Midori, a lightweight, fast, and free web browser
doesn't it kind of translate to always steal unless you don't want to steal
Learn about which GoodUI ideas work best
Why I want my interracial son to play with Legos
Code: https://github.com/geocar/dash

"really fast webserver for kdb and dashboard-making bits (more than 10x nodejs)"
is it ethical to create involuntary behaviours in your users?

Yes. Coke, McDonalds, The Gap and every other consumer company try like hell to create involuntary behaviors in people all the time.

is it ethical to judge users for behaviours deliberately created in them by applications?

Yes. Other than the specificity of the words "by applications", this is what credit scores are designed to do. Madison Avenue in deliberately trying to create behaviors in all of us. A credit rating measures a person's ability to resist that when it isn't financially sound.

should the attention of users be better protected?

No, at least not for adults of sound mind. People are free to make their own decisions, whether that's doing a keg stand or spending 3 hours clicking a button on Farmville. People can be warned about potential dangers, but it probably won't have much of an effect.

can we start developing consumer applications that aren't deliberately designed to capitalise on the attention of their users?

Yes. Or at least, you and anyone else who wants to can. But making products that people use frequently is a common definition of success. Most comapnies aren't going to pass that up because some people have addictive personalities.

how can we educate people to navigate a world of applications designed to hold and capitalise on their attention?

Good luck with that. Education vs the Forces of Capitalism. Winner: Capitalism.
I made a gigantic leap in interpersonal skill and ability to make eye contact when I started noticing that kind of mental motion, and started using it as a cue to look at the person I'm talking to.
For an article addressing the issue of autism in women being misunderstood, I would have hoped to find a clear description of the actual difference with male autism. Instead we get a few human interest case studies and scientists working on this. The article simply doesn't seem to go to the heart of the matter.
In only 100 lines of PHP!

Requires Symfony.
Site seems to be under heavy load. Mirror (fullpage screenshot):

http://i.imgur.com/4cX12xZ.png
Bioengineering has rather high barriers to entry and an oversupply of highly qualified workers.

You see the same thing in any field that attracts more workers than it needs.
I believe Compcert still translates programs with undefined behavior and doesn't really do anything about it; or rather, the behavior is defined but based on whatever the Compcert authors define the behavior to be.
It's too bad Pascal is dead. Wirth's original recursive-descent Pascal compiler was utterly straightforward. It produced mediocre, predictable code.

I have hope for Rust, but in terms of complexity, it seems to be picking up where C++ left off.
Pagans, Puritans and the 2,000-year old paradox that is Christmas
> That seems trivial to verify; just record all conversations you have with everyone. I have been doing this since 2009.

Only on HN...
It was really refreshing to read this response. Somehow it turned into "I prefer framework X over Rails because...." and Rails is lame because [fill in the reason here]. I've never even heard of Phoenix before this thread.

I guess Rails is stodgy and old. Technology changes very frequently sometimes too frequently. Less than 2 years ago everyone was getting on the Angular bandwagon. Now the conversation I've been having with employers is "Yeah we've decided that React is going in a better direction so we're replacing it with React."

Think about all that wasted code and time learning how to use the new framework so you can get what out of it? A few more miliseconds performance? Better more visually pleasing syntax? Learning the new hot thing? Does anyone ever think about the Return on Investment (ROI) relationship between learning something new, how hard it will be to learn that new technology and then figure out what you are gaining from using this new thing? Once you spend all that time trying to scale the steep learning curve for Angular or Ember or whatever new tech comes down the pike do you ever wonder "what did we gain by learning this new technology? was it worth the trouble learning it? What benefit did it provide once you know how to use it?"

I guess Rails is getting long in the tooth, but for the most part it does what I need it to do. It's predictable, it's readable, it's organized, and best of all I'm just competent enough to use it. I've hit the wall trying to learn it and overcome most of the pitfalls and aggravations while using it. It's just blowing my mind how eager many programmers are always pursuing the next technology. I'm all for change but only if the change is worth the aggravation. I don't know if Rails 5 is a big improvement but really it's good enough for most of what I need it for.
This justifies Nassim Taleb's Black Swam.
> She is currently at 27% for her age.

That sounds precise... Is that based on the size of her vocabulary?
Well, at least there's no word on them taking their gold fillings as well. That's good.
Clearly what you want is something other than C.
This is a really disturbing trend to me. If you learn to read one year earlier then the last generation then.. what? What long term effect will that have on your life? Kids are learning so much at that young age already, even if they aren't sitting a desk learning from a certified teacher. It's cliche, but we need to let kids be kids for a while.
Requiring libraries/frameworks shouldn't detract from something like this. I'd be more worried about bugs and feature support.
Ask HN: How do you find a decent PHP developer?
I've been let down by developer after developer. Tried Upwork/Odesk, reddit, craigslist, etc. All the code samples I get are uncommented and messy. Why is it so hard to find someone who adheres to best practices? Am I just looking in the wrong places? I'm willing to pay $15-30/hr which I know is somewhat low for the US, but not all countries.

I've been an engineer for about 20 years, so I know my expectations are probably a little too high, but I have yet to receive even one code sample that I would feel even remotely comfortable with...
More than just built in functions, any object that defines a __len__ and a __index__ method (that provide len(x) and x[0] respectively) can also be iterated over in a for loop ('for item in instance'). A good reference for magic methods is [1] for anyone interested.

1. http://www.rafekettler.com/magicmethods.html
What would you recommend to parents who don't want to assign their very young (.5-1 yr old) children to what most folks think of as old school traditional daycare? Do you think daily structured group dates supervised by a rotating parent or guardian would have this same effect? What were the key ingredients that you think made your child have a good experience and concurrently gave you as parents confidence in the process?
Bro was a pejorative friend. To be clear I never attacked you. Not once. I called your arguments into question, but that is what we are doing here. I believe your reasoning to be specious.

>I'm a piece of shit because you disagree with me, but it just so happens that you've been all over this thread with a continuous stream of purposeful mis-understandings and/or downright trolling.

This is just not true. I called you that because you tried to do just that to me. A quick re-read of all my comments and I'm sure you'll see I never made any personal reference to you. Now if you consider me telling you that you are incorrect an attack then I'm sorry this is something you'll need to get used to. In this case because you are wrong.

I've offered you ample opportunity to proffer a statistical argument, but all you can give me is "if I didn't build its not safe" Sorry friend I just don't trust you. I've been doing this a long time and I don't trust myself.

I never told someone to do something "cause I said so" but then again you never address the meat of my position. "Cloud providers have much lower failure rates than you historically I trust them more than I do you when building my understanding of the risks". Its trivial to undermine my position. Show you have lower failure rates than a prime time storage provider(bonus points if its amazon).

Lets just a get a few non sequitars that you can't seem to get your head wrapped around. I never said don't have a back up. I said the back up in the cloud is the most durable one.

I never said amazon couldn't fail. I just said the chances they fail vs. you are orders of magnitude lower.

I never said you were bad at your job. I said you seem to have a shaky grasp on statistics and possible a fair amount of NIH syndrome.

You are correct my anecdote doesn't prove my point, but it provides anecdotal evidence to corroborate my statistical position.

I didn't say "don't be open or transparent" I said pulling a persons personal details into an internet argument crosses a very clear line.

Get over yourself and remember not everyone that disagrees with you is trying to undermine your career. But you step over a line with you get personal and start pulling personal details into an internet conversation.
> Writing secure software in C is just next to impossible.

This is true. And it was true when I learned C, and was told almost the same exact thing on the second day of class. In 1992.

Maybe eventually we'll collectively move to something safer, but at this point I've stopped holding my breath. DJB's proposal seems pretty reasonable in the interim.
This does raise a good point: your goal is not the same as the bank's goal. A terrible credit customer (pays credit cards in full every month, never gets a mortgage or car loan) may be the most financially responsible person they ever see.

Keep that in mind when striving for a better score.
Not everybody talking about remediating past wrongs are proposing or endorsing such extreme measures, or not in an extreme way. What's frustrating is that moderate or conservative (small 'c') voices have been essentially silent on the matter leaving the field disproportionately open to more extreme advocacy. Those who are in favour of more moderate steps should advocate them and not use other people's disproportionate views as an excuse for throwing their hands in the air and giving up on the whole subject completely.
Oh and of course you need an AOC too, forgot about that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_operator%27s_certificate
Surely this is where things like __attribute__ ((optnone)) and #pragma optimize("", off) come in useful.
> People who trust each other can cooperate together without expending resources on protecting themselves.

This is not how security works. You need to consider the adversarial case, not the average case.

> Consider Bitcoin - the cost of that trustless system that barely works is mind-boggling waste of electricity

The "waste" is actually for the purpose of putting a floor on the cost to trick someone into believing a non-consensus history.
C# for Systems Programming
Its true that FDIC has lost fewer deposits than S3 has lost objects, but as usual there is a caveat. There are 2,000,000,000,000 objects in S3. In order to make a comparison the FDIC would have to insure over 300 deposits for every man, woman, and child on the planet and maintain a failure rate of '0.000000001%' or The FDIC would have to operate in its current state continuously for many millennia without interruption. I don't get a sense that the contrarians here appreciate the numbers involved.
Basically. You need to handle all checked exceptions (Exception class), but not unchecked exceptions (RuntimeException class).
Isn't ocaml garbage collected? Won't the GC pauses leak timing info?
Undefined behavior is primarily something that that has effects, rather than at compile time. For example, taking the value of an uninitialized local variable.

int main() {
int i;
if(some_big_complicated_function()){
i = 0;
}
printf("%d\n",i);
}

Is this undefined behavior? The compiler can't be sure, because it can't know whether `some_big_complicated_function()` returns true or not.

Therefore, it would need to be a runtime check, rather than a compile time check. But runtime checks are expensive, and so it typically isn't done. It would be entirely allowed by the standard to give such a warning at runtime, but the resulting program would go much, much slower due to all the checks.
Iranian E-Commerce Players Compete for Yalda Campaign
Space-X launch today, 8:10 PM EDT
Space-X tries to return to space today with a Falcon-9 launch in about 5 hours. They're going to try to land the booster on an unused pad at Canaveral.

Webcast: http://www.spacex.com/webcast/
Show HN: Working in a Startup Wonderland (a sing along)
Undefined behavior is the end result of conflicting standards; the usual human response to a pile of confusing standards is making yet another new, soon to be confusing, standard, see XKCD for the graphical interpretation. And that new standard both contains new undefinitions and via its impact against existing standards creates who new waves of new undefinitions.
Then how do you explain the fact that some of the most secure pieces of software ever written were written in C? (I'm thinking of, e.g., Qmail — and pretty much everything else DJB has ever written — and OpenBSD, just to name a couple off the top of my head.)

I would also qualify your statement that "performance is not everything" to say that performance isn't always everything. Writing a kernel in an interpreted language probably isn't the best idea, for example.
"Uncommented" doesn't mean "bad". Messy does, though.

"Best practices" is vague. If you're specifically asking for code that follows "best practices" you might want to tighten up your verbiage and be more specific so the expectations are clear.

Other than that, if you're looking to spend relatively low dollar, I'd probably expect to get relatively low quality.
Considering that one of the project's main goals is to address the needs of non-programmers, do you plan to add an improved Markdown editor (with some syntax highlighting and maybe buttons for things like titles, bold, etc.)?
I'll be honest though I wish patents worked.

I'm glad patents don't work. I've always felt there's something very deeply wrong with owning an idea.
Here's the thing, I shouldn't expect to be met with other people's rudeness. That's not my fault. They are the ones that are rude. The exact attitude you're displaying is exactly what you are struggling to avoid saying.

I'm not shocked if a stranger approaches me; I consider them unable to recognize the social situation and they are being rude. I also grew up in the city, where the socially polite thing to do in most public situations is to leave people alone.

I go to coffee shops because I like the laid back atmosphere of many of them. I also like the smell of coffee and people watching.
I think that's why we have so many static site generators. However programmers typically end up just making the static site generator which is why there was nothing like Lektor before (to the best of my knowledge at least).
It's not about how much you pay off each month at all. The banks don't calculate credit scores—the credit reporting agencies do. And the credit-reporting agencies don't think that way.

The thing about credit event streams is that they're very low-detail: basically they amount to, for each credit instrument you have, a series of {pay-period, code} pairs with nine possible codes, R1-R9. Your score is entirely calculated† by taking (a seven-year sliding window of) those event-codes and applying weights to them. R1, the most-positively-weighted event, just means "paid on time this month."

The thing you want to do to build good credit quickly, is to generate as many R1 events as you can. You can carry some of your debt on a card to "stretch" one large charge into multiple R1 events... but a more efficient strategy (that doesn't involve paying any interest) is to simply have several cards, use them all for at least one trifling thing each month, and then pay them all off each month. Three cards you paid off $5 charges on is three R1s, and counts for just as much as one $500 charge you paid in three instalments (also three R1s.)

If you want to dig in and see exactly how much information a CRA will give you, here's a Ruby implementation of the Experian Connect API: https://github.com/ehutzelman/experian

---

† Well, okay, there's also two other things:

1. a positively-weighted factor for how much unused credit each instrument holds each month. Which usually translates to "you get punished for carrying an 80%+ balance on a credit card." The key with this one is that—all else being equal—it's better to have cards with higher credit limits, because then you're not using as much of each instrument's capacity, and that reflects better on you.

2. a negatively-weighted factor for any "hard inquiries" that the credit-reporting agency had to respond to within some time window. Each time you apply for a credit instrument and the loaning institution asks the reporting agency to calculate your credit score for the purpose of determining credit eligibility, that's a "hard inquiry" event. (You can think of these as their own credit event on a "meta" instrument held by the reporting agency itself.) Unlike normal credit instruments, there are no industry standards on how to set the weights or time-window for the effects of "hard inquiries", but the windows are usually short (~6 months), AFAIK. All else being equal, don't quickly, repeatedly apply for credit: each successive loaning institution will see a lower score. (And note the "for the purpose of determining credit eligibility" bit. There's another kind of event, a "soft inquiry", that happens when you—or some third-party on your behalf—just asks the reporting agency for your credit score in order to know it, or background-check you, or whatever else. I'm pretty sure none of the big three CRAs in the US give any weight to a "soft inquiry" event.)
Can somebody wrap this in a Slackbot and call it SmarterManchild?
Absolutely. See also the open ticket here: https://github.com/lektor/lektor/issues/7
Why not learn to use Erlang instead of trying to make Erlang "feel kind of like Ruby" ?

As far as LFE goes.. implementing a LISP-1 on top of erlang seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do, but why invent some new funky syntax (elixer) ?
Signs of Gulf Stream Slowdown: Sea Level More Than 1' Higher Off US East Coast
Nice article, but the language embedded here is exactly the untyped lambda calculus, not a Lisp. You can tell because there are no tags: pair is given as \x y sel -> sel x y, which is indeed the textbook way to encode pairs but does not provide enough to write CONSP.

If you wished to implement a subset of Lisp in LC faithfully you would need an encoding for sums - which would not be all that hard, but does reflect the distance between Lisp values and the raw abstractions of the lambda calculus. (There is also the more substantial matter of RPLACD, etc, but let's just pretend that particular rabbit hole is not there.)
This would certainly worth a warning (at some warning level) exactly because what you say -- the compiler is not sure that the behavior is fully defined.
So, you're saying that the mythical HCF instruction[0] was somewhat real?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halt_and_Catch_Fire