skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
its all in the doc, you program dma controller

btw fun fact - sound blaster "dsp" was Intel 8051.

Creative is a NASTY NASTY company, they ran around stealing technology and suing companies out of existence (Aureal), suing over hardware compatibility ( http://www.singaporelaw.sg/sglaw/laws-of-singapore/case-law/... ), and screwing customers (EAX, drivers).
I didn't say people in industry weren't smart. There's plenty of stuff that gets published at conferences where the industry guys are like, we did that 15 years ago.

My argument is that there's lots of great-in-theory but untested-in-practice stuff in academia, and that you can't discount something altogether just because it's untested. It's hardly fair to compare the output of a few grad students over a few years with all of the effort that goes into a major industrial product.

And anyway, the architecture of Linux originated in academia too.
> encryption won't prevent the government from harassing me based on my skin color or my choice of employment, or anything else I do or am that can't be encrypted.

Agreed. But if these are your overriding concerns, then go campaign for them. Don't campaign against privacy in hope of indirectly fixing your actual concerns. Surely you'd agree a world without privacy but still with governmental discrimination is the worst outcome, and by inverting and campaigning against autonomy you'll find it quite easy to get to.

> I don't know how to respond to that as any rights and morals you could legitimately give yourself or obey by definition can not depend on other people's compliance.

Well it's pretty simple for them to get their subject to comply, by applying pain.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but you'd reply that they are acting immorally. But that is not how you originally defined the problem.

So we change the definition to require non-aggression, there is no one left to enforce transgressions.

So we change the definition to allow aggression only to enforce non-aggression - then we have to pull in a concept of what's-worse to avoid escalation. And this framework must still be agreed upon by everybody!

This is not arbitrary bickering or simply not defining things smart enough. This is the inherent generation of complexity by following implications.

> Really? Do you even know your neighbors?

Now, not so much. In the past, sure. It's a general saying, and it's a general saying for a reason. The idea is to not have to negotiate socially with them. Please read about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_point_(game_theory), it fits right in with the other concepts you are referencing.
We'd certainly have less. There would be no reason to presuppose that it would be better: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEFBR14

The key to better software is learning from the research literature, not thinking that you're improving because you write nothing but ASM macros in ed(1) in a TTY emulating a VT100 from the 70s.
Your argument assumes a level of understanding in cosmology and physics that does not currently exist. The standard model, as it stands is incomplete and does not predict all observable phenomena, it is intellectually dishonest to imply that we have fundamentally answered these questions empirically.
I'm on uBlock Origin 1.5.2 and cannot access Forbes as well.
My friend and I used to have a serious case of "after you" deadlocks during our studies; we would get stuck in front of a door insisting the other goes through first. We eventually figured out a simple solution - if we found ourselves about to get stuck in another "after you" loop, we'd play rock-paper-scisors, and the loser had to go first. It quickly became almost a second nature for us, and it looked pretty confusing/hilarious to people stuck behind us in the queue.
I had seen this a while back, probably on here, but it is exactly the kind of thing I am looking for and will definitely read it over a couple more times.
I'd really like to discuss the mod downs my comment recieved.

I did not just randomingly pick this twitter post for shock value...I picked it for a specific reason.

Like I've said..I've spent more time then I care to admit in both county jails and prison. The one absolute thing that a white person never says in those environments is the N-word that Ian used in his tweet.

It is literately the third-rail of vocabulary where perhaps 75% of your fellow detainees are of color,and for that reason is why it stood out so much to me, in reflection of MY personal experience.

I just thought a bit a deeper explanation may be in order.
Until we have a One World Order with no nations, what do you propose?
Here’s the First Shot of the F-15C Pod That Will Change How the Air Force Fights
For the desktop, most users care about responsiveness, not throughput. That high throughput Linux kernel makes it utterly craptastic for professional audio usage, with insane amounts of latency. Of course, that has more to do with ALSA being a steaming pile than the kernel in general, but it's one example that shows throughput isn't the only thing that matters /especially/ on the desktop.
On the flipside, assuming he was the one posting to his Twitter, his family are disrespecting his final wishes to spark a discussion about police brutality by asking for silence and no publicity. The exact opposite of what Ian had said he wanted on his Twitter.

To some people it's spitting on an open grave by denying him that last wish and that is disgusting.

It's all a matter of what lens you use to view the scenario. Many wish to show respect to the remaining family or to assume that wasn't Ian on his Twitter or that his words were meant for something else. Others wish to respect Ian, his family be damned.
No, it's not faith. It's drawing a conclusion of invisibility based on best available evidence, and then acknowledging that invisibility looks a whole lot like nonexistence. Faith would be drawing a conclusion despite the evidence.
Because the money is not made in the US
Depends on a queue, I guess. In case of cash machines one could feasibly rejoin the queue at the original position; in a mall however, reserving yourself a spot in a queue and continuing to shop is considered rude.
> You seem to outright ignore the most important part of the blockchain: The "wall" is shared between multiple parties and each party can verify the changes.

No, that can be done without a blockchain. The only piece you need is digital signature, an established technology. If someone hands you a block of data with a signature, you can hash it and check the signature corresponds to the purported signer.

> As for value, consider that even for legal businesses in many countries even getting bank accounts...

Yes, because there is such a thing as money laundering laws. I have a friend who is a specialist lawyer in this area, and it's actually non trivial to do KYC, especially for people from certain countries. The procedures and various banks' understanding varies as well, hence your issues. And this is an important point. If there were no restrictions (who can have an account, and what do they have to disclose), there wouldn't be much of a point in bitcoin. Everyone would just find some old bank somewhere that would give them a numbered account, and that would be that.
Uber just completed its billionth trip
Jewish isn't a race. It isn't necessarily racial discrimination to just hire Jewish people (a Jewish person can be white, black, whatever).

Is it discrimination based on religion? Obviously.
Owntrepreneurship Blog- 2015 in review
I'm upvoting in hopes you'll continue to share your experience and (evolving) conclusions.
Due to the way they leverage their foreign subsidiaries, they're able to play accounting games that drastically lower the perceived (and taxable) profit of those US sales. Such as this mentioned at [1]:

"ASI [an Irish Apple subsidiary] buys Apple products from a Chinese manufacturer, resells them at a “substantial” markup to other Apple affiliates and retains the profits, the report said."

[1] http://www.macworld.com/article/2039299/senate-report-apple-...

Not that they're the only ones to play this game. A FMCG company I'm familiar with does something similar by having billions in raw and finished good materials owned by a Switzerland-based subsidiary for tax purposes.
OK, I'll add another 'no' to you both. If a company is operating in a certain country offering goods and services to the population of that country then that country has the right to levy taxes upon the sales of those goods, and upon the operating profits of that company operating within that country.

Global corporations fiddle this by moving money around so it appears that they don't make a corporate profit in that country, hence they pay no corporation tax. For example, companies like Vodafone continuously buy other companies that are making losses deliberately to offset their profit making mobile operators.

A simple way to solve the problem is to levy an internet sales tax, which is the same percentage as the corporation tax that these companies should have paid if they were operating solely in that country in the first place.

This would have some added advantages to companies that have bricks and mortar stores, who currently struggle to survive and compete with online competition. They provide the customers advice and the ability to try on their goods and then the customer price compares and buys cheaper online.

Whilst customers are benefiting from lower prices in the model we have today, we face the real risk that in twenty years you will only be able to buy a book from Amazon. There won't be any other book store.
> Plato [..] was at heart a religious ideologue

Which religion would that be?
It's paywalled.

The problem isn't fundamentally changed by having transactions on a blockchain. You either ask the blockchain who has what assets, or you set up some other system to do the same. The problem isn't that they need the information distributed, that can be done by any number of existing technologies.
I'm on uBlock Origin and got a page telling me to turn off my adblocker to access the content. I did so, and it worked.
Linus argument is that use of debuggers may contribute to bad design, but he does not prohibit their use. As Linus was not the core contributor to cgroups (Google was) and kernel debugging certainly was available when cgroups was first implemented, I would say the opposite might actually be true.

Personally, I think the UNIX OS design is a poor fit for the requirements of Docker et al. The problems with cgroups should be a signal that it breaks the fundamental design assumptions of Linux (doing fundamental resource separation and multi-ring security in a monolithic kernel).
Was it is a loss leader when it was released, and now hardware has caught up?
Baidu was there already there to quickly fill the void that google left. Similar things would happen with other companies if major players magically vanished the next day too.
> You should be able to plug numbers into a spreadsheet and get it.

But we have that. Take profits and multiply by 0.35. Done.*

The fact that Apple effectively pays less than %10 corporate tax rate in the US is, I think, what the parent poster was referring to.
I'm sorry, but what?!

Unit testing is not an exercise in the mundane by making your manager happy, it is about validating that the thing you just wrote actually works, so that you can move on to the next thing, eventually aggregating all of that work together and constructing code that works!

As others have said, you test inputs and outputs (and maybe you need to test some failure modes depending on the complexity of the situation). When you're working on a parser, or lexical analyzer of any sort, wouldn't it be nice to know that it is capable of parsing what you thought it should?

System/BlackBox/Integration tests are too high-level and the more you rely on those as your sole testing, the more brittle and difficult you make it to track down the cause of test failures. It also means that you have to spend more time constructing test scenarios to testing the inner-workings of the system, things that are easier to do in unit tests. Bloated tests at that layer actually make it MORE difficult to refactor.

Decent unit tests help you define the inputs and outputs of your functions/classes/design. If it's hard to write a unit test on it, then you probably have side-effects in the code that you can't properly account for (bad code design). When it comes to a point that you need to refactor and the unit test is in your way, then guess what? refactor/delete the test...
The simple answer is stop being concerned with your own lifestyle and do what's right, consequences be damned. Edward Snowden at least had the guts to throw his entire life away to bring attention to something he thought was morally wrong.

The lack of that sort of courage is why the world is going to hell. Today's attitudes of prioritising personal 'comfort' over what's right is why this sort of crap is being allowed to happen.

The best solution for a company in this situation (especially a large one) is to blow the whistle to the media and watch the fallout. Oh sure, you might not come out alright, but the media and internet reaction would certainly be fierce, and the reputation of any government involved would go to hell extremely quickly.

More the reputation goes, the harder it is to stay 'legitimate' and keep in power. Same thing goes for companies trying to shut down smaller ones and individuals through threats.
DARPA's VTOL Combat Drone Could Revolutionize Naval Combat
That would be an interesting game!

I think the basis of his argument generally stood on principle that most human activities involve or interact with architecture in some less-than cursory fashion. Most of the examples you gave require purpose-built architecture in their pursuit so somewhere along the line there was an architect that needed to understand the requirements of say, a IC chip factory, or a biology lab, or a history museum.
We're now equating emotional distress with material injury

This is not the problem; while we can't measure emotional or psychic distress directly we can infer the severity of it by observing the instance of suicide, which is motivated by emotional rather than physical pain. Rather the problem is that reminders of emotional trauma are often carelessly equated with the initial imposition of trauma. It is of course absurd for students in a class about sexual assault and the law to object to the very existence of the subject matter; on the other hand, to dismiss emotional injuries as immaterial is equivalent to saying that it's OK to terrorize someone as long as you don't harm them physically. If someone broke into your bedroom tonight and hold a knife to your throat but them left without any further assault, you woouldn't have suffered any material injury but I am pretty sure you'd have trouble sleeping.

This is what happens when children are raised in frictionless environments. The real world doesn't care about your feelings.

I hear this sort of thing a lot from people who have been through a little bit of friction and now think they're immunized against it. Having grown up in a very high friction environment, I find your argument weak.

(Can't wait for the downvotes)

Don't do this, it's only a step away from trolling and debases the discussion by unilaterally putting it on a confrontational footing.
Wait - didn't Google say it wouldn't pursue military contracts, when it bought those Boston Dynamics robots? Because most people thought at the time it would be quite an "evil thing" for Google to do (building Terminator-like robots [1] for the US military's invasions and all that). So much for Google's promises.

[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HALC9PBQMQ
At least from a .uk idiomatic POV (or at least from mine), 'unhinged' is a description of a potentially temporary mental state (hence 'unhinged when' making sense as a conjugation) rather than an attempt to attack the mentally ill. I'm not fond of the speculation, though, but can find nothing to say about it beyond that that wouldn't merely be adding my own speculation and thereby exacerbating that aspect.

Or: You can apply the principle of charity to somebody's choice of words and still critique their point, and that often works out better in terms of constructive results.
Bletchley Park's Sue Black and Code Club's Clare Sutcliffe in New Years Honours
Getting Things Done When You’re Only a Grunt, Joel Spolsky, 2001:

http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000332.html
> there are winners and losers

Currently, we are the losers, our governments are the winners.

> The winners have a strong economic incentive to keep their communication private, as has been the case throughout human history.

That's exactly how our govt functions today.

> This group of people might decide to release everyone's data in order to appease your desire for a post-privacy utopia, but almost certainly they'll keep it for their economic advantage.

True, but we are still at the cusp of applications that pay users for using the application and for their info, which could also be made public, but as you said, might not happen.

> The resulting system you are advocating is one in which a tiny percentage of people has near-universal control over the populace.

That's what we have today. Please understand this, the future he is proposing is at worst as bad as what we have today and at best, so much better.
Show HN: Himawari-8 (Whole Earth Geostationary Weather Satellite) Wallpaper Bot
First ever bit of Python - not very tidy, improvement suggestions welcome!

The results are cool though as it updates every 10 minutes.

Anyone else do/see anything fun with scripting wallpapers?
The warrant canary idea assumes that the law can never compel anyone to make a false statement. Do you have anything to suggest that this is false?
You're preaching to the choir. I've been involved in professional graphic design for over a decade. The vast majority of professionals get a better deal using Adobe CC.

As consumers we don't have any right to demand software at whatever price point we want.

Only non-professionals have a hard time justifying the low monthly price. For them there are plenty of other competitive options. No one is forcing you to buy Photoshop -- use one of the other tools available.

As software developers we should all be able to understand: pay the price for the professional software, or if you think you can do it better, write a competitor.
This is complete speculation:

Quirky likely had far more scruples and far less connections than these guys, plus I bet Quirky had far less balls when it came to negotiating with a vendor.

These buyers are likely expert and negotiating the price down, or even playing vendors against each other, to get the costs as low as possible.

Their savvy in being able to react quickly with a response product is likely largely driven by their business accumen in this regard...

Quirky was too altruistic in the way they likely handled the manufacturing.

Remember, success in business can often be a reward for some pretty shitty behaviors.
Generally, I see a lot of testing of internal functions, which often should change their contract as refactoring happens.

All too rarely do I see people focusing testing on public APIs.
I feel like there's a certain irony here that you responded to somebody's policing the use of the word unhinged by criticising their use of the word slur.
Stop adding up the wealth of the poor
I wouldn't call Richard Dawkings close minded. Here's a man who abandoned a successful career in biology because he found contemplating God more rewarding.
> The Lenovo X140e is a ThinkPad.

Oh, heh. Derp. Edit: I mean to say: My bad. I overlooked that. :(

I see at [0] that the only Ubuntu Certified configuration is with a rather ancient pre-installed version of Ubuntu. Did you get the system in that configuration, or did you purchase it and put Linux on it? [1]

Regardless. Why didn't you return it and get something that worked? Curiosity? Cussedness?

> [I]t's simply too time consuming to check all of those things.

Odd. I find it reasonable to spend between a couple of days to a week researching the suitability of something that I'll use throughout the day, every single day for next three-to-ten years. Perhaps my opinion is atypical.

> Considering the number of hardware devices (Bluetooth, wifi, mic, camera(s), trackpad, GPU, fan, power saving, etc.) it's all but certain something will go wrong.

I guess I've had fantastic luck with my personal selections and the recommendations that I've given to others. Given that luck is my super power, I'm somewhat willing to believe that my experience is somewhat atypical. :)

Anyway. Good luck with your projects and such, and I hope that Apple keeps producing hardware that meets your needs.

[0] http://www.ubuntu.com/certification/hardware/201309-14195/

[1] Still... one would expect that any Ubuntu Certified Laptop that has a supported hardware configuration would be detected by the Ubuntu installer and configured appropriately (or you'd get a big fat warning when the hardware isn't "supported" by a later Ubuntu release). OTOH, Canonical isn't the best at getting things right, so... :-/
Gettin’ bodied by Classics: the joys and challenges of public scholarship
The validity of an object depends on the observer. If you require all Customers to have a billing address but a person is in the middle of a multi-page checkout, should their Customer record be invalid if they've only filled in their email so far? What if they want to come back to the form later?

Rails tries to fix this with the `:on` option for validations (http://api.rubyonrails.org/classes/ActiveModel/Validations/C...), which goes woefully unused in Rails apps.

Now you can do:

customer.save(context: :checking_out)
# which is different than
customer.save
Zimbabwe to adopt Chinese yuan as legal currency after debt cancellation
Actually, I agree with most of this. However, Linus letting in the cgroups branch instead of vetoing it proves the opposite, unless the presence of some kernel debugging (nothing close to kmdb, I'd think) depleted Linus' skills somehow.
They all are.
hm. article didn't really put it in to any perspective..

how bad is this? deep-water horizon bad? fukushima-bad? wildfire-bad?
... and Graylog CTO here. Ask us anything! :)
Good point about utilities. Plus, with decentralized (solar) power generation, utility companies are really starting to show some cracks too. As soon as distributed energy storage is economically viable, they're going to need to adapt even further.
According to one analysis, when it launched, the console cost $381 to manufacture and was being sold for $400: http://press.ihs.com/press-release/design-supply-chain-media...
One can honour both man and cause by grieving now and avenging later.
I'd assume that there's certain requirements for the size of exam rooms based on an understanding of the equipment and exam tables, as well as privacy considerations: the doors should not open into a space visible from the waiting room for instance. How do you design the waiting area to put people at ease before a potentially intrusive and stressful medical exam? Does the client have the ability to bring personal items into the exam room or are their cleanliness requirements that preclude this and require you to design a coat room with storage?
Would it be possible to achieve the opposite in some way?, I mean, dump the kernel and build it on a pc on top of a compatible hardware?
Let me know what you think
was told it sounded really good. the video sounds like nothing at all...
Why would workers in the military enjoy privacy while they work?
> Italian prosecutors have been investigating allegations that Apple failed to pay corporate taxes to the tune of 879 million euros, sources told Reuters earlier this year.

So they negotiated that down to about 40%. Yes, that's how it works for the big guys, they get to negotiate their taxes.