skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It works fine, and includes things like the ability to access the Android API (with pyjnius and plyer) but there are some problems that are difficult or impossible to fix. In some cases these aren't important or you can just not care, in others they are an issue.

The major ones that come up are:

- Relatively large APKs, minimum size is about 7MB due to the size of the included python interpreter.

- Non-native widgets, Kivy draws its own widgets using OpenGL. They're quite customisable, but of course you never get behaviour quite like the native ones.

- App startup time. This is down to about a second on newer devices, but on older ones (or if the app does inefficient things before starting up) can be quite a bit longer, especially on the first run when some unpacking is performed.

I've seen some nice examples recently of apps that do a good job with Kivy itself (e.g. demonstrating more themeing than most and using android api functionality), like Kognitivo [1] and Barly [2]. I think these do a good job of showing what Kivy can do in practice. Used the right way it's also very performant for e.g. games (the low level graphics api is a cython layer over opengl), especially with the ability to add your own cython and use libraries like chipmunk. A good example for this is Boardz [3], which uses the Kivent game engine for Kivy [4].

[1] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.kognitivo....

[2] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.topbanana....

[3] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.chozabu.bo...

[4] http://kivent.org/
Good old Karl Marx from Germany had more history to ponder and got it right: rich and poor are regulated enemies, more or less depending on where you do live. The rich can buy resources and people, the poor need to act together to survive. PAul Graham in 2016 teaches both moneymaking (for the rich and the poor, that's also why HN exists) and new pies creation (for the rich to become richer thanks to their competitive advantage). The basic outcome for the poor as a whole is that they will never make more money than the rich but can still make enough to live better.
They all respond because I asked them for it. About half didn't upon turn up. It's super trivial for them to null route them or readdress in rfc 1918/4193 space.

Or are you referring to xconnects inside their network? That's up to them to work out and I've never seen a provider just abandon their network while under attack.
Breathing Exercises Relieve Anxiety
Try http://learncpp.com
Some days I wake up after only a couple of hours of sleep. Other days my brain simply won't turn off. I try to sleep, but the brain simply won't stop thinking random stuff and staying awake.
HAKMEM (1972) [pdf]
Good insight. I didn't split the categories for the report (nor did I distinguish in the essay) for pretty much exactly this reason.
Understanding the Promise and Pitfalls of Machine Learning
My Fantastic Linux and UEFI Adventures – 2016: It Maybe Save Your Money and Time
>Trying to put in the effort to get a bump in salary is very different from the kind of creation that is the main benefit of startups to society.

Exactly my point. It's a very small effort comparing to running your business. Even by itself it's not much - reply to a recruiter, have some interviews, change direct deposit, insurance, 401k etc.

>To counter your anecdote with another one, if only half of the characterization of Steve Jobs is true, do you really believe the exact amount of potential financial upside was ever really a question for him?

I am not familiar with Mr. Jobs but seeing how he has been extremely well compensated all his life I see no reason to believe he was not financially motivated.
One of my best mates took this video. He'll be well chuffed to know this has been posted here.
The wealth that PG and his friends accumulate through app startups does not come from nowhere. The millions of dollars that make a handful of men rich depends on extracting value out of:

1) Government funding. GPS, the Internet, touch screens and the CPU. All funded by government research where the tax dollars contributed by each and every citizen is the investment capital.

2) Global cheap labour. Miners in Africa (mining litium for batteries for example) and factory workers in china provides the infrastructrue for YC startups to make enormous profits.

3) Open source software. Unpaid labour provides the free tools that a startup need to "grow fast" without much investments.

Most people involved in 1-3 don't see any return on their investments. Something to think about.
These are default (placeholder) avatars. Users can upload their own avatar image as well. They're serving PNGs so they don't have to deal with the case where users using default avatars get HTML output whereas users who have uploaded an avatar get an image inserted.
It certainly is possible to recognize that disruptive startup businesses provide value and quality over preexisting services, and criticize them for flouting laws that are supposed to protect their workers, and/or customers.

It also is certainly possible to recognize that government overregulation has enabled rent-seekers to do great harm in staunching competition and establishing a low level of quality for consumers, but also that government has the power to protect the customer and the worker from exploitative businesses.

A thing can do both good and bad. We must all recognize that.
Could it be group psychology? I'd like to chat with a psychologist or sociologist about this. My pet theory is that these sites, internal looking, closed etc all work on the basis of the group. And even "the wider open internet" also works on the basis of the group. However, a more forward thinking humanity may want to increase the group, the range , the diversity, or they may want to be more realistic about our psychologies....
The Journey for Large Files on GitHub
See the comments: lots of tweaking and unreliability and not guaranteed to work in emails, apparently.
I use the term 'slavery' because its descriptive, not because its literally true.

I do understand that 711 shift workers don't have their feet cut off if they leave.

When I say things like "we need a bit of Socialism right about now" .. I don't mean hardcore enforced-total-equality Socialism, I mean nice Socialism like the kind Bernie Sanders has been raving about.
> I suspect most slaves would not agree with you.

No kidding! Believe it or not, even in 2016, there are tens of millions of people around the world living in actual slavery[0]. Most of them would probably still literally give a kidney to trade places with one of these lower-class people in the US.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_slavery
Geometry in 3D Computer Graphics
I agree with your sentiment but I don't think sarcasm is going to get you anything but downvotes. The person you're responding might be underinformed and/or hasty generalizing, but probably deserves a more constructive reply.
Ah, I was being lighthearted with that word choice, and I don't have any axe to grind with PG personally. An alternative which captures the same sentiment without any negative connotations would be "maestro" "majordomo" "magnate" or even "de Medici".
>Starting one's own business meant starting a business that would start small and stay small.

And what's wrong with that?

Besides it being false of course.

If anything it's more sustainable and more productive (as these business MAKE something, don't just eat VC dollars or at best sell ads) than today's "startups" model, which is based mostly on a speculative bubble + ad money.

All the thousands of major companies, from IBM to Bell and from HP to Apple, Boeing, McDonalds and Kodak, and countless others in all lines of business started as small and grew from there.

It's a perversion (and counters the rest of PGs rhetoric) to narrow startups to "companies funded with VC money for a few years to get enough users/eyeballs in the hope that they can be sold for a few billions" which is more or less the modern kind.
"Those who are in control of the system" in this case are simply your fellow users. The community is often in disagreement about what should be on the front page. To the extent that we intervene as moderators, it's often to try to balance the competing concerns. Unfortunately it seems to be impossible to do that perfectly.
The last job I left was an extremely fulfilling job that I'd gladly stay in for a lot longer. Unfortunately, as you mentioned, work is not the only thing in life. Together with my fiancée, we've decided to move back to our country of origin, due to many personal reasons. This change had nothing to do with work at all.
What's new in Unicode 9.0
Innovation without delusions
Selling something that people want isn't equal to providing value. Let me be pessimistic: coffee doesn't provide a positive value, because it's a drug that get's people addicted however little and subliminal. Maybe that is a value to society in general, but it isn't to the individual. The car definitely is an economic nessecity in some parts. I don't know what refridgerator oligarchy you are refering to and it specifically doesn't matter. I'm sure the term oligarchy relates negatively to democratic societies.
The travel time might be the same if the self-driving cars created fewer traffic jams and smooth flowing freeways.
Agreed. PG is in the business of helping people move up the wealth ladder, which is laudable and pretty much the opposite of preventing other people from moving up the income ladder, which is what rent seekers, wage thieves and tax dodgers do. Putting himself under the same umbrella as the oligarch class seems disingenuous and non-productive.
This. For more details, read "Flash Boys: Not So Fast" by Peter Kovac (http://www.amazon.fr/Flash-Boys-Insiders-Perspective-High-Fr...).

Alternatively, Chris Stucchio's blog posts (starting with https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2012/hft_apology.html and https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2012/hft_apology2.html) work.

We have been told so much that HFT were the bad guys by the media that we ended up believing it, but it is more of a scapegoat for the rest of the financial world.
As reserved as I've been with the "Refragmentation" essay, I have to say that this one is the kind of PG's essay I like.

I'd add that with governments printing billions of dollars a year, it's intriguing to even think that the only way to be rich is to take from the poor. One needs to understand how money flows and stop trying to work more to earn more but start working smart to deliver more and attract more.

"The reason they go into finance is not because they love finance but because they want to get rich. If the only way left to get rich is to start startups, they'll start startups. They'll do well at it too, because determination is the main factor in the success of a startup."

Nicely put.
> I don't mean hardcore enforced-total-equality Socialism, I mean nice Socialism like the kind Bernie Sanders has been raving about.

It's taboo to point this out, especially on HN, but I'm feeling bold today:

You can't discuss the socialist policies of Western European countries without addressing their wealth. And you can't discuss the current wealth of Western European countries without acknowledging the process by which they acquired that wealth.

The "nice socialism that Sanders has been raving about" is the kind that is practiced in countries with a long history of colonization and slavery[0]. During this timeframe, they "earned" a massive amount of money by extracting resources from people that they literally enslaved. This started before the 17th century and continued into the 20th century.

Those people who were colonized and enslaved (and their countries) are still feeling the effects of that today, and they would not be so quick to describe that kind of socialism as "nice".

[0] Denmark and Sweden are the two that Sanders has called out specifically by name.
The Secret Art of Learning
"The truth is that most of us read continuously in a perpetual stream of incestuous words, but instead of reading novels, book reviews, or newspapers like we used to in the ancien régime, we now read text messages, social media, and bite-sized entries about our protean cultural history on Wikipedia."

In other words, instead of reading stuff written by Important Academics like the author ("a lecturer in the English department at the University of California Irvine. .. BA in comp lit from Oberlin College , a MFA in fiction from the University of Notre Dame, and a MA in English and a Ph.D. in Literature and Creative Writing from USC"). they're reading stuff by Other People who Shouldn't Count. Aw. Weep for the irrelevant academic.

That's not the problem. The problem is the decline of journalistic reporting. Journalism was all those reporters who went out in the cold and rain and small-arms fire to where something was happening. They knew people who worked in factories and union halls and police stations. They were accustomed to digging out news. ("News is what someone doesn't want published. All else is publicity." - British tabloid owner, circa 1900.) They sent back stories with Who and What and Where and When and Why.

There are still some of those people left. They work for the very few remaining news organizations that can afford them. The rest rewrite press releases and pontificate. They work for Demand Media and Aol, churning out glosses on the work of others and carefully watching their page hit statistics. That's the problem.
For me, it's personal preference. Node.js is used and loved by many, but to me it's just an asynchronous event loop running on a single threaded process with a JavaScript API. I've written performant Node.js code and maybe for smaller web services it's great. But for a backend server, I worry about human error in large, evolving projects (especially when it comes time to scale).

Other issues faced by myself and colleagues more experienced than me include callback hell, race conditions, NPM errors and debugging code (in hindsight, something like node-inspector would have come in handy [1]).

Why Elixir? Well, for me OTP makes writing async code much easier. Message passing between GenServers or other processes is effortless. Fault-tolerance is built into the platform, as processes can be supervised and respawned when they die. It is based on Erlang, released 30 years ago and used by many large companies and projects [2]. Also, writing it makes me genuinely happy. :)

I would consider Ruby mostly because I've had my hands in Rails apps and can make my way around them. I've also been blown away by many brilliant people I've met and worked with in the Ruby community.

[1] https://github.com/node-inspector/node-inspector

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erlang_(programming_language)#...
If merely trying a new brand can cause a medical condition worthy of its own name or if it can have adverse effects depending on other medical issues I might have, then yes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypermagnesemia

Do you take all kinds of vitamins and supplements with this cavalier, throw caution to the wind, attitude, or just magnesium because you happen to know it's tame enough? Before supplements don't always bode well with existing conditions, or even with high dosages.
Yes that's true. Internally a lot of library types use heap allocation. Most well designed libraries avoid it if they can, but sometimes the object is simply too large for the stack. For many library types its a undocumented implementation detail we dont know about.

We as users of that library type should not additionally put that object on the heap though, if we dont have too. Its simply unnecessary.

Its makes for one extra unnecessary pointer indirection, it adds unnecessary reference counting if using smart pointers, or unnecessary manual memory management if we use raw pointers. It complicates the interface for our functions if we have to wrap types in smart pointers.

As for c++ references. Yes that's true. As I understand it they are implemented as pointers internally by compilers. But in important ways they behave more like values, rather than pointers. As in if you copy or assign to them, they copy or assign the value (not the pointer). If you take their address they give the address of the value (not the pointer). Because of this there are not as many pitfalls to using them as there is with pointers. I see them mostly just as aliases for values.

In the example above I could have passed the string by value (instead of by reference) to the function. It would still not have done a expensive copy, because of copy elision optimisation. I probably should have done that. It looks a bit funny, and takes some getting used too.

Relevant:
https://web.archive.org/web/20140205194657/http://cpp-next.c...
And this from antirez who writes such excellent programms, Redis runs in several companies I've been, without ever crashing, making any trouble - most people I've met forget they have Redis running because it just works and works and works. Can't praise that piece of code high enough.
A single disk seek takes a few milliseconds. If you need to do any kind of disk verification, it will take longer than a few milliseconds.
Canonical answer: https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3du1qm/e...

http://fusion.net/story/170591/the-next-time-someone-says-al...
> The nominal wage has increased since the early 70s, but the purchasing power of that nominal wage has gone down faster than the increase. This is policy, not capitalism.

Which option would you prefer? (1) You have a 70s real wage, but can only purchase goods and services that were available in the 70s, or (2) You have a 2016 real wage and you can purchase all goods and services available today. Keep in mind that real wages have stayed roughly constant since 1970.

Most people I know will pick option (2), which suggests that purchasing power has in fact increased rather than decreased. Technology is improving and everything is becoming cheaper, bringing up our standard of living.

Here are some facts about Americans living in poverty, according to the Census Bureau [1]: 80% of households below the poverty level have cell phones. 96% have a television and 83% have a DVR. 97% have refrigerators, 96% have stoves, 93% microwaves, and more than 83% have air conditioning. 58% have computers. If you had to choose, would you prefer to live in poverty today in 2016, or would you prefer to live in poverty in 1970? How about 1900 or 1800? How does the standard of living in poverty compare to any other time in history? An American living in poverty today probably has a better standard of living than a typical king did in centuries past.

[1] http://www.census.gov/hhes/well-being/publications/extended-...
The cost of saying "All Lives Matter" in response to "Black Lives Matter" is that you are seen to be ignoring the main issue.

Its not that its wrong, its that its perhaps insensitive - a certain amount of empathy and solidarity could be a start in acknowledging the problem.

So while "All Lives Matter" is truer, its less useful at the current moment in time when Black people are experiencing real pain, and we have a huge problem that needs to be addressed urgently.
If data caps are to be more prevalent, I'd like to see ISPs regulated as a utility. If I use more power, or make more phone calls I'm happy to pay more for that use because the connection fees are equal between high and low demand consumers.

If I pay higher monthly connection costs for high speed access (the monthly service charge) and pay to actually use the service at the intended speed (additional fees generated by a data cap), I am being double billed for service.

Data caps in conjunction with a higher costs for high speed access are a predatory business model.
A long but worthwhile piece. From the introduction:

"If I told you that contemporary ideas about innovation and disruption were driven mostly by ideology, ignorance, and marketing hype, would that seem controversial or extreme?

"If my proposition were true, though, would it change the way you think about innovation?

"It changed for me. I came to my conclusions over the Christmas-New year break, when my reading list contained an unusually dense stack of essays and articles about innovation. The common features were about undefined buzzwords, and formulaic models that avoided coming to grips with innovation, often missing even of a workable definition.

"So let’s start there...."
Right, if streams aren't downloaded in order, that'd be very inefficient, and if it has to wait for the whole file to be downloaded, that'd defeat the purpose of streaming.
Both have in common the order-giver and order-obeyer.

Of course, I agree wage slavery is better than chattel slavery. Better to have some choice of master than one imposed on you. (Though slaveowners made the interesting argument that they must take care of their workers because they own them, unlike the capitalist who merely rents them.)

In the US, the prison system replaced slavery as the mechanism to control the black population. So the US has not improved much in that regard, with even children killed in broad daylight by the state.
I'll give a short explanation as to why I downvoted this:

This is about as obnoxious of a comment that could ever exist.
This article is being buried, dropping from second place to tenth in an instant. Interestingly it's being surpassed by articles that are both older and with less points.
In my experience it replaces everything NoScript does (blocking scripts by site) and then some.

Or am I mistaken?

If so, could you clarify as to how?
It's not as if wealthy people take their money and put it under their mattress. No, they invest it. That investment money flows to other corporations who then spend it on goods and services, or spend it on their employees.

No they don't. From what I've read (Piketty etc) they do not re-circulate it into the general economy. They use investment vehicles which are increasingly divorced from "real world" economics and more like moving chips around on a poker table. It's wealth in the service of wealth creation. All of that happens in an almost separate level of the economy. No poor or middle class person is even involved.

I'd "hazard a guess" that wealthy investors might be more effective at creating more wealth, but not at raising the standard of living of the countries they are in. In fact, the standard of living in the United States is declining.

Approximately 100% of the money that poor and middle class people spend goes to corporations. If you give them money, they spend it on goods and services. That's pretty efficient.

The alternative, if you tax the rich, is that the same money flows to the government and the government spends it on programs.

Is that the only alternative? At this point, probably. I don't trust the government either, it's a bloated plutocracy. But you could still make a completely economic/utility theory argument that the benefit to 100M+ people outweighs the overall good for the 1K+ people at the top of the current hierarchy.
Politicians in the US track the median very closely. If 30% of voters believe something, close to 0% of politicians will. If 70% of voters believe something, close to 100% of politicians will. We saw this most clearly with gay marriage - Obama and most of the Democratic Party flipped their positions right when the poll numbers passed 50%.
Perhaps, then, there should be fewer publicly traded companies, and more workers' co-ops.
IPFS (https://ipfs.io/) is essentially the same thing with a use case bolted on top of it.
You appear to find it inconceivable that people don't share your morals.
Disruption is merely skirting the law and pocketing what you would have spent on compliance as profit. AirBnB cleverly disguises its actual employees - the people cleaning its hotel rooms - as independent contractors. They are employees in every sense apart from having rights. And the genius of it is, they do it to themselves!

This is not "creating value", it is destroying it.