skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10783012

Bank of America gets Twitter to delete
journalist joke (arstechnica.com)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10787478

A bank persuaded Twitter to delete my
tweets (businessinsider.com)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10800948

BofA gets Twitter to delete journalist's
tweet (arstechnica.com)
Thanks for the review. Ya it has few bugs. We would like to add more languages if we can get exact translations or someone who can do that. I don't trust google translations for that.
from StumpWM to OSX? ouch
Is the media afraid of Facebook? I have read criticism of Mark Zuckerberg's track record of underhanded and deceptive tactics, e.g. his recent "donation" to "charity", selling Free Basics in India as a gateway to the "free and open Internet", but generally I have not noticed media hostility towards FB or Mr. Zuckerberg. Even the stories about his company's more questionable moves usually include both sides of the story.
Why would you need keymaps? As far as I know, the terminal emulator (urxvt in my case) takes care of pasting the text into Vim. I never had to configure anything to use shift-insert or the wheel button to paste.
This is a false equivalence fallacy. Developers solve problems that businesses run into, whatever they may be, not just pump out code. Also, the solutions they come up with make use of a massive public domain of previously solved problems, like on stack overflow. If software had the same culture of copyright that music has today's technology would be equivalent to what we had in the 80's. The open source community is a glaring example of why you're analogy is so flawed, because there are many developers who believe open access to information is a good thing and that their skills are still valuable even if their work isn't copyrightable, and they do more than just believe this, they live their lives that way.
My point is that you are still building war-robots, you just aren't getting paid for it. The military will just pay someone else to build the military version.

In 2015, we made great progress in identifying a person with a gun:

http://www.bidnessetc.com/59108-microsoft-corporation-beats-...

Bet this technology soon makes it into drones.
> Ever had the feeling that your job might be made up? That the world would keep on turning if you weren’t doing that thing you do 9-5?

Who said that every job needs to be super-duper-important and that you need to change the world with every breath you take? That's some new-age bullshit right there.

If you're getting paid, it means someone is deriving value from your work. There are no bullshit jobs.
Pretty much, never had a problem with it.
Beyond one-hot: an exploration of categorical variables
Jog? Maybe in 1986, these days it's all about the sprints.
Nobody said "muscular". They are physically fit.

This discussion is just silly. Most men don't like fat women and most women don't like fat men because they will get caught by predators / can't catch food. Like most men you trotted out the "beauty" bit because men never see the asymmetry in women not seeing fat men "for who they truly are" whilst wanting the babe themselves.
Much easier than the logistics of keeping a robot operational in the field. You don't care whether the Taliban captures your flesh and blood mule, but you really don't want them capturing your world's-most-advanced robotic mule.
not to mention this is a 200 year old idea that was a terrible idea then and hasn't gotten any better since
Why GitHub is not your CV [2013]
>It’s a large Python application (~30k LOC) which handles syncing via IMAP, SMTP, ActiveSync, and other protocols.

In what context is 30k LOC a large application ? 30k LOC is small enough that one programmer can write and easily have an overview of the entire codebase. Maybe it's a typo and it's 300k LOC
Speaking as a case in point. PE lessons were my nightmare. My fitness was always below class average, and never had an interest in competitive sports - I always found exercise tiring, boring, and something you are forced to do. School cemented that attitude.

The lessons could have been better. For instance, starting with making one run as fast and as far as you can (and repeating that every few months) meant only that I wanted to puke my guts out. If we were following a running program of increasing difficulty instead, I might have noticed my stamina increasing and maybe would have liked it. Though our teachers probably assumed that we're doing sports after school anyway, and not e.g. sitting at home learning how to write video games.

I'm older now and I see it's about feedback. If something makes you feel miserable, then without strong sense of purpose about it (encouraging it is something school universally sucks at) you're likely to avoid it and hate it even more. OTOH, if you started your PE lessons relatively fit, they were probably pleasant for you and thus the feedback loop worked in your favour.
It happens to physicists too, as satirized by SMBC [1]. Without knowing the first thing about psychology/sociology, I'd posit that it's because both have to learn what is socially accepted as a 'difficult' discipline. Since every other subject is perceived as similarly difficult or easier, their meager understanding of another field is magnified out to perfect knowledge (i.e. this subject must be easy to learn since it isn't physics/engineering && I've spent a small amount of effort learning it, therefore I am now an expert). It'd be interesting to see how experts in other 'difficult' fields react, for example, master martial artists or the like.

... but I'm not a psychologist, so take that with a heaping teaspoon of salt.

[1]: http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2556
What would be really amazing is if Jupyter's notebook server was abstracted further from a general cell-based execution model, and instead provided a generic graphics backend for making web-based GUIs for a variety of programming languages.

Sort of like a combination of GFX.js: https://github.com/clementfarabet/gfx.js/ and PyWidgets, except widgets are no longer constrained to a single cell and the interface is not limited to cells.

This would make it really easy to prototype IDEs and other programming tools in the browser or on native clients - in general it's pretty hard to write an IDE or graphical tool because one needs to integrate system calls to whatever graphics frontend they are writing. However, Jupyter's kernel architecture gives that away for free.
JavaScript framework to create responsive resume/portfolio site from json
Sure, there's lots of old hardware that the manufacturer no longer supports. That, to me, seems like a very different problem, as the older hardware /was/ supported by an older version of windows. It's true that this traps you in an un-patched OS, but (as pointed out many other times in this thread) patching Linux components also risks creating hardware incompatibilities.
How often does this happen...?
Effective APM requires more data
That's about the reliability of my home server. A set of commodity mid-to-low quality parts that I assembled and programmed to turn on after a power outage.

And I could easily double it (as in half the unavailable time) if any ok ISP become available at my place.
The Top Regulatory Battles Facing Tech Companies in 2016
Only 8% of Leaders Are Good at Both Strategy and Execution
I reached out to the folks at Springer and asked them whether the availability of 57,000 titles for free download had been some kind of accident. Here's the response I got:

> Thank you for reaching out to us. From time to time our titles may become available to the public for legal download. There is no guarantee that titles available will remain available permanently. The only titles that will remain available are titles marked as Open Access.

Thus, it sounds like what happened was an accident or publicity stunt. I expect access to remain cut off.
Mind blowingly, or not - BofA will charge you $35 for the privilege of printing "DECLINED" on a pinpad terminal.

There is the greater issue, to be sure of managing finances, but charging this fee on -electronic- transactions is highway robbery. Just say "DECLINED" and go on your way.

Oh, and for shits and giggles - Declined? Your friendly helpful cashier may say "Oh, it didn't go through" and swipe your card again. Ding. Now you have SEVENTY dollars in NSF fees.

Good luck getting that fee dropped too. "One courtesy fee reversal per customer per year".
I love technology (and it pays me well!), but I'm rather disgusted at how much is basically just throw-a-way now.
Homemade wooden framed motorcycle
You are actively helping it along, you simply lack the ability to connect the dots.

Over the next 10 years, the military should fund building World Cup robotic soccer teams so people such as yourself can feel comfortable with the non-military technology. In year 11, they can add the weapon.
> bricklaying, plastering walls or wiring electricity.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that a gym is much more accessible than construction projects.
I think the answer is that Erlang's creators are not academics and they sort of never went out of their way to tout functional properties of their language. Functional properties fell out of their requirements for simplicity, fault tolerance, concurrency and reliability. In other words the goal of Erlang was never to be functional but to be useful for fault tolerant distributed systems.

Someone down the line probably mentioned to them "Hey, btw, did you know you have a functional language?" And they probably shrugged and said "Oh, cool!"

I would guess Joe, Robert or Mike never went about reading papers on type theory, thinking about meta-circular evaluators, or y combinators etc and said "We need that, let's implement it!". Instead, they started with stuff like "let's minimize state" so made state explicitly passed in. "Let's minimize mutable state", so make data immutable. So then need recursion instead of for loops, so let's think about tail call elimination. They played with Prolog so language inherited the base Prolog syntax which has a functional taste to it, that helped as well.

The same thing kind of happened with the actor paradigm. They never started with a goal of implemented an actor / message passing programming paradigm. It just fell out of fault isolation property. Someone later told them "Oh btw, did you know you have implemented the actor paradigm?" and they probably shrugged and said "Oh, cool!" and went back to doing whatever they were doing.
One big drawback not called out to electric is you have to power it to have it hold still. Hydraulic can just leave a valve closed which may or may not require power.

Then again just have it "sit". This may not be the best tactically though in small group engagements as "sit" is movement and freeze is dead stop.

I'll let people who know more about that debate it though.
From personal experience I would urge everyone to start with some form of Yoga.

It's less easy to quantify your progress than with weight lifting (whose easy conversion into numeric growth I wonder isn't one of its attractions when you're a data-driven kind of person) but has further reaching benefits beyond basic physical strength.

After 3 years of fairly regular yoga practise (3-4 sessions a week), even when combined with a fairly poor diet/lifestyle alongside it (way too much fun), left me feeling stronger, fitter, calmer, more centred, more energised* than I ever had before.

For those of you who, like me, are put off by the more 'hippy' aspects, I'd say it's a question of finding the right teacher rather than writing off the entire practice (my teacher at the time was nicknamed 'El Sargento' for her, shall we say 'strict' approach -- she taught Iyengar yoga with is a lot about details. This didn't suit everyone but suited me down to a tee).

There is an awful lot of pseudo religious bollocks that surrounds it but within that there's a really solid method for improving the quality of your life.

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laoq1eeIUxQ
As others have pointed out, that's not normal. I have a huge number of services, not only Windows development related services but also MySQL and multiple instances of Apache and it literally has no noticeable impact.

It might be worth turning off any applications that launch on login that you don't need. This now easily accessible from the task manager. It even tells you how much startup impact each app has so you can find out which ones might be causing you issues.
The first thing programmers (or any group of people) need in order to improve their lives is a reason to improve their lives. The blog says "go analog" or "improve your health" or "learn a new programming language" etc. But why should I, or anyone for that matter, go analog, improve their health or learn a new programming language? For fun? If it's for fun, the list should have been called "Fun activities for programmers". This all new "improve-yourself-without-any-context" new age movement doesn't make any sense to me.
A 4x4 matrix can represent a position and a rotation, where the 3x3 matrix (called the transform) is the rotation and the 4th row (calls the transpose) is the location in space.

The neat thing is that when you multiply matrices together you update the original matrix. e.g. If you want to rotate something 90degrees to the right, you make a transform matrix with a zero transpose and multiply it with the original matrix. The resulting matrix will be an object in the same place rotated by 90 degrees.

Most modeling applications since about 2000 though use quaternions and a point to represent rotation and location. That's because it uses less memory and is easier/faster to compute.
> The value of functional programming is not in what it brings, it's in what it takes away.

That's what I used to think, and in fact I still think like that somewhat, but do note it's explicitly mentioned as a red herring in John Hughes' well-known and often quoted paper "Why Functional Programming Matters".

From the paper:

> Such a catalogue of “advantages” [things that FP lacks or constraints] is all very well, but one must not be surprised if outsiders don’t take it too seriously. It says a lot about what functional programming isn’t (it has no assignment, no side effects, no flow of control) but
not much about what it is. The functional programmer sounds rather like a medieval monk, denying himself the pleasures of life in the hope that it will make him virtuous. To those more interested in material benefits, these “advantages” are totally unconvincing.

> [...]

> Functional programmers argue that there are great material benefits — that a functional programmer is an order of magnitude more productive than his or her conventional counterpart, because functional programs are an order of magnitude shorter. Yet why should this be? The only faintly plausible reason one can suggest on the basis of these “advantages” is that conventional programs consist of 90% assignment statements, and in functional programs these can be omitted! This is plainly ridiculous. If omitting assignment statements brought such enormous benefits then Fortran programmers would have been doing it
for twenty years. It is a logical impossibility to make a language more powerful by omitting features, no matter how bad they may be.

He then goes on to argue that the real benefit of FP languages is that they excel at modularity, a widely agreed upon trait of good software, and that they have an excellent mechanism for "gluing" stuff together, i.e. lazy evaluation.

(I've since read that some FP devs disagree about the importance Hughes placed on laziness).
Android N and beyond to ditch Oracle’s Java for open source version
Just wondering, if you want code that reflects the way you think then how do you think about things and models that inherently don't map into objects?

I'm kind of the opposite: I rarely use objects (as in methods welded to holders of state) because they only fit in certain domains but when they do they are indispensable.
use the built-in webserver: php -S localhost:8000
1. Arrogance is the inability to politely consider someone else's approach or point of view.

2. Detecting arrogance in others is pretty easy: they do not listen to an alternative point of view with any patience.

I think the question really being asked is: "How do you detect arrogance in yourself?" That's more interesting, and more difficult. Unfortunately arrogant people are the least receptive to the feedback they are arrogant because the root cause is that they are bad at listening. There are some good indicators you can use to help recognize arrogance in yourself if you are an arrogant person by nature, however. I think the most effective is to monitor your use of questions and not statements when having discussions with your peers. If >90% of your contribution to the conversation are statements and not questions, you're almost certainly being arrogant. "We can't do it that way" is very different than "Why did we decide to do it that way?" One is a statement that begs equally fierce opposition, the second starts a conversation that reveals reasoning and the creative process.

So ask lots of questions, and really listen.

3. I'll avoid answering this--it is different for every person. For many it is simply not having had historical peers on their level to effectively add to a conversation, for others it is just a learned behavior. It isn't as important how people go that way, it is important they recognize it and stop.

4. Human behaviors are rarely binary good/bad: each usually has a place. Arrogance can be a tool in rare cases where a massive display of confidence can substitute as a shortcut for authority--you might sometimes see a CEO, for example, say "I am right on this and you are wrong, we are doing it my way" (the subtext that this is in the interest of saving time or resources is often lost in translation). Steve Jobs built an empire on this. However, it is generally bad in the long term to display this level of arrogance--all large-scale work is teamwork, and in a organization of 100 peers you will only be the most right statistically a small percentage of the time.

This is why avoiding arrogance is important; it means that you are open to hearing other solutions and implementing them when they make the most sense.

To avoid arrogance is simple, yet hard. You have to actually listen and converse with your peers. If you have disagreements you should state them politely and from a non-combative alternative point of view--not a combative self-driven point of view, and you should not jump to conlusions. For example: "Won't it be harder for a user to access feature X in this redesign?" is better than "How am I supposed to access feature X now? We can't ship this, it is not good enough". The first leads to conversation, allowing the opposition to present their approach, the second does not. Perhaps feature X was buried because it was found to be used with reduced frequency by actual customers? If you start with the second you are less likely to have the conversation with your peers where that critical information is revealed.
I think the primary difference is efficiency. You won't gain strength as quickly doing construction as you will following a strength training program. If your goal is to gain as much strength as possible with the lowest time commitment, doing exercises and using equipment specifically designed for strength training is the better move.

That said, not everybody has exactly these goals, so if learning construction skills is more appealing to you than spending time in a gym, by all means.
OP here: I ran a poll on Twitter [1] that attracted 827 votes asking the question of what site best represents a developer's skills and experience. Github was by far the #1 choice.

[1]: https://twitter.com/crtr0/status/681327621548818433
A Guide to Public Cloud Security Tools
> Also, I assumed Windows 10 Home didn't come with BitLocker anyway.

Apparently it's "device encryption" but it's not BitLocker. And while it's optional at the moment, it becomes compulsory in summer 2016.
You think you are making a good counter argument with the relation to software, but there is a sizable population of developers who believe exactly this, that throwing out copyright is a good thing. Currently most if not all software is created using previously written code that developers find from other developers online, like on stack overflow. None of them actually think to pay a poster on stack overflow for their solution, and systems like that wouldn't survive if they had to. You would have much more support for your deal than you might realize.
I learned functional programming from "Common Lisp: a gentle introduction to symbolic computation" (David Touretzky) and "Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs" (Abelson and Sussman). If you have better sources, I am open to rethinking what I said.
IMO the problem is about making people feel bad.
Arrogance is the "I'm smart you're not" attitude.

Sometimes you think you're helping and sometimes you're actually helping but you're still making people feel bad about themselves.

YC recommended a nice book that can help you avoid being arrogant:
Non-violent communication: a language of life

https://books.google.com.br/books?id=nY4tDDO93E8C&printsec=f...
Not if they weren't going to pay that anyway.
In my opinion, I don't think inflatable robots are very practical.(except for niche applications)

One of the most important things in robotics is reliability, the more work your robot does before breaking down or needing maintenance the more money it makes you. In industrial robot arms the gold standard for this is a Mean Time Between Failures of more than 100,000 hours. That's more than 10 years of continuous operation!

I am skeptical that inflatable robots will be able to last this long. The fabric/elastomer combo is certainly not going to last through 10 years of continuous operation. Sure this part may be cheap, but you still need expensive valving and pneumatics to control said robot. Not to mention that maintenance costs money too. The payback period for robots is also shortening,

The other problem that pneumatic robots suffer from is that air is compressible. This means that moving it around to drive pneumatics is gonna be inefficient and that pneumatic structures aren't that rigid. Higher rigidity means higher resonant frequency which means your robot can operate faster without wobbling around. The inefficiency might be compensated for because the robot is so light, but I have yet to see any hard numbers on this.

This lack of rigidity is touted as a feature by the people who make inflatable robots. Because they are so light and aren't rigid they aren't going to hurt people if they fuck up. There are other ways to solve this problem that are currently used in the robotics industry. One of them is to put a spring on every link in the robot, which is what the Baxter robot does. Another is to make the robot as light as possible and limit speed which is what one of Kuka's human safe robots does[0]. Better control also fixes this problem, if you don't hit the human then you don't have any problem.

But there might be niche applications. Maybe they will find use in the medical field where having anything rigid touch a human is unacceptable or where you need a weird shape to grab a human on a bed. Entertainment might be another, a while back a japanese company made giant inflatable robots for parades.

[0] http://www.phriends.eu/URAI_08.pdf
TITCR
While HKT are pretty neat, they're hardly essential, and to claim that without them you literally can't build reusable FP libraries is ridiculous.
Top Achievable Habit-Forming New Year’s Resolutions for Your Small Business