skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
One of the benefits of this design overlooked is that you can have several dedicated accepting-threads. The benefit is magnified when you have something like HTTP where the client speaks first.

Another benefit of this design overlooked is that individual cores may not ever need to read memory -- the entire task can run in L1 or L2. If a single worker becomes too complicated this benefit is lost, and memory is much much slower than cache.

SO_REUSEPORT is not panacea, and I do not agree that you should have threads accept and handle requests, but I do think SO_REUSEPORT is useful for making upgrades easier. I have (historically) simply blocked outgoing ICMP port-unreachable messages for ports that I know are supposed to be running since that's more portable than SO_REUSEPORT.

accept4() is a good idea. I've added a note about that. Thank you.
Lyft has gotten much better. From heavy usage in San Francisco, my anecdata shows that tipping in Lyfts is not expected.

Drivers are reasonably paid without the tip (as opposed to, say, waiters) so you really can just tip for exceptional service.
Incentivizing the people on the street to upgrade to self-parking cars. That's a giant feature, not a bug.
>> It's already illegal for these algorithms to have discriminatory outcomes, even if they're not deliberately designed in.

> unbiased algorithms often discover that things we previously attributed to bias were actually unbiased predictors

That may be true, but Schneier is speaking on a different topic -- redlining. There's a long history of people discriminating based on race, sex, class, etc. and pretending they're using an unbiased algorithm instead. The word redlining comes from the practice of using geography to make decisions. It's obvious to most people that geography is highly correlated with race and class. Therefore, even if geography itself carries no intrinsic bias, to use geography as a variable in evaluating credit-worthiness is discriminatory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining
I think ad networks are the ones who
should be taking the lead here

I don't understand why one ad network doesn't take this seriously and have strict rules and enforcement against "bad/heavy ads", and then use that fact to differentiate itself from competitors. The resulting conversion of sites to their network (perhaps with a certification of compliance badge that sites can display) would provide that economic incentive... and perhaps steer the broader market in that direction over time.
In Manhattan this is already happening. Not-so-rich people drive around for an hour looking for "free" or cheap street parking. Rich people pay others to sit in their cars while they are illegally parked.

Having a robot do it instead of a person would be an improvement. Better would be to make the behavior stop regardless of driverlessness.
Probably not yet. But I am sure that they are looking at this option that was used by JRuby+Truffle: http://chrisseaton.com/rubytruffle/cext/.
Where they use the same technique but then on C.
Although I heard that they will replace that approach with one where they directly work on LLVM IR instead. So that they can get all the LLVM supported languages in one go.
How to Sell in Every Email, Have Your Subscribers Love You, and Make a Ton More
Parent's comment still stands.

National organizations have influence in local policy when it affects issues they care about. Normally, at least for very contentious issues, this doesn't happen (e.g. abortion, global warming, gay marriage) because those matters aren't handled locally.

An issue like this would absolutely be a priority for AARP and its members. Those members, as correctly noted, are likely voters.

Source: I work with local governments across the country.
Supercharger stations are Tesla-only today. Remind me, are they cheaper or more expensive than gas stations?
The algorithm would be Bayesian inference using the aforementioned likelihood.

The example is a simple illustration of how to fix bias. If bias is unknown then treat it as another unknown variable and use bayesian inference to identify it. If this is unfamiliar, I'm actually publishing a blog post about it tomorrow (how to find the bias in your phone's compass) which you might find helpful.
ClangFormat is your friend ( http://clang.llvm.org/docs/ClangFormat.html )
Why even care about it being your car? How about just a car? At your bidding when you need it and no other time.
I really don't want that to happen, because I have, um, embarrassing things bookmarked. Typing things into the url bar with other people around is already somewhat of a risk.
I found flights to Athens on flychecker at € 118
Many sub-pewdipie youtube celebs have expressed a desire to host their own content. They want to break free of youtube, but the bandwidth and legal hassles are too much. A turnkey setup read to go on AWS or azure would probably suit them. This isn't that.
You'd be surprised. There's a GDC talk about Antichamber from a couple years ago (I really recommend watching it) which explains the amount of time that was invested into the game.

Antichamber was a 7 year long hack on Unreal Engine, it's really not a drop-in game.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOlcB-JxkFw
Misleading title. The 'Operating System' is just Linux. (which is okay, just don't pretend it is a new or other OS)
"Apps extensions and user scripts cannot be added from this website."

Is there any way around this? Is it possible to jailbreak Chrome?
15 days is great?
Microsoft will drop support of IE8, IE9 and IE10
Heh, and here "often" means "often during failures". ;)
There's already very active mathematical work in this area. See fatml.org . I appreciate jeremy kun calling this out in Schneier'so comments.
Could this be considered a more elaborate Valgrind?
hey! good to see cool stuff, saves a lot of time for developers. would like to know do you support cloudservices like s3,sqs?
Waiting 20 minutes for a train on weekends is not uncommon. Neither is stopping underground for long amounts of time. Our metro system here is pretty terrible. It's usually cheaper and more convenient to just drive where you need to go. And it will always remain that way, because the people in power don't have to use it (and they don't care about the people who do).
Here you can clearly see how the 'we'-culture is misused by the 'top' of Mozilla to shuffle off responsibility: there's nobody to rebel against.
Sounds like you're the one with confusion; vtables are not a feature of C. C++, sure, but that's a different conversation. Your point is invalid.
no, this is static and compile time while valgrind is dynamic and run time. also, the rules for the failing states for valgrind are specified ad hoc in tool code while properties of programs checked by frama-c are user extensible via the specification language
I feel like mathematicians are the ones who get to decide what constitutes basic algebra.
The 4 presentation attributes every leader needs
do you mean red team / blue team as in attack / defense or as in red tribe / blue tribe?

or just names for teams?
This is wonderful. I hope gradients become more regular in web design. I wrote an image -> css gradient converter last year https://github.com/fraser-hemp/gradify
Solved MCQ Questions on MIS Set-4 – InfoTech Site
Ask HN: How do startups value security?
I was recently reading Jason Lemkin's "It’s Time For You To Make Security a Core Feature — Not a Tax" (https://www.saastr.com/its-time-for-you-to-make-security-a-core-feature-not-a-tax/) article and it made me wonder how security is valued in startups. I realize that it is hard for most startups to justify spending cash on security and then I started to wonder:

-What equity would you give up in exchange for dedicated security audit services? (.1%/year or something)

-Do you perform security audits? If so, do you do them in-house or outsource them?

I would love discussion from both startups and consumers.
A crash course in the life of a Silicon Valley startup founder
I'm glad Aerospike uses this technique.

Yes, it is not new. I've been using this method in one form or another (e.g. SIGIO/F_SETOWN) for more than a decade, however nginx (relatively modern?) doesn't use this technique and could really benefit from it on some workloads. I wrote about it after I casually mentioned it a roomful of quant programmers and found out they didn't know about it; I do not think most servers use this technique.

I've added a note about accept4(). When I have some time I intend to repeat my benchmarks with it to see how it does. Context switching is much cheaper than memory so I do not expect much.

You should publish benchmarks that are easy for other people to reproduce. I tried running Aerospike on my laptop and was unable to get above 25,000 writes/sec. I'm certain I'm doing something wrong, because the same hardware easily gets above 60,000 writes/sec on KDB per CPU.
If you are selling a service, you want to be ahead of the demand. A parking lot, a business, isn't going to get far by lecturing to customers as to their car choice. That would be like me shutting my office to any client I though needed a better business plan. You have to take the customer as they are.
Enterprise-ready, battle-tested and unit-tested have little to nothing to do with clean code. Clean code is really talking about readability here.
The most common place people get stuck in a/b testing is proper design of experiments, i.e. absolutely no methodology (i.e. proper blocking) at all. It's ridiculous how a/b testing is perpetuated to be of paramount importance. A/B testing would be one of the last things I would do, if I worked at a small ecommerce company, for example. What lead to the current state is venture-backed companies and "growth hackers" and "conversion optimization experts" selling false promises to people who haven't read a marketing textbook in their life.
From last year's epic "emotional labour" thread on metafilter [1], `barchan` made this comment that seemed to resonate with a few people:

> Another terrible thing about emotional labor at work is that
> women "stepping up" to get things done is not just expected and
> unappreciated, it's called "teamwork"; but when guys do it, it's
> called "leadership".

[1] -- http://www.metafilter.com/151267/Wheres-My-Cut-On-Unpaid-Emo...
Not so exited about this, much more exited by the car driving itself to be serviced if possible (and back)

Or just "your car is your own Uber driver"
If you can get into cache and stay there, you can enjoy 100x or even 1000x speedup.

Having your CPU do a lot of different things is a good way to get out of cache :)
This is about parking, not powerplants.

I cannot think of any service that limits itself to an exclusive client list yet is cheaper than the same service that is open to a wider client base. Exclusivity always come at a premium. And I haven't seen any gas station charge anyone for parking. So yes, supercharge stations are not more expensive than gas stations. It's still a ridiculous comparison.
open the extensions tab, and drag the crx link from github into the extensions tab

continue button appears bottom left
This is irritating

It's fine to want to pay less, but in the end you might have just parked at a train/subway station far away and taken the train downtown

Faster, quicker and probably cheaper
> My original objection was to the claim that a program could be proven correct, without any qualifiers. Any program, not all programs.

Let's be precise.

Let P be the set of all programs.

Let C(s) ⊂ P be the set of programs correct relative to specification s.

As I read the original statement, it was saying,

{p ∈ C(s) | p, s ⊢ p ∈ C(s)} is large enough to be useful

I am not sure whether you read it differently.

> As stated, it's a false claim.

You have said this repeatedly, but all you have done in support of it is point at the Halting problem. The Halting problem says:

∃p ∈ P s.t. ¬(p ⊢ p ∈ C(halts)) ∧ ¬(p ⊢ p ∉ C(halts))

You have claimed this eliminates the possibility of proving correct any non-trivial program:

> [T]he Turing Halting problem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem) demonstrates that one cannot establish that a non-trivial program is "provably correct."

I see no way to read that but as a claim that:

(∃p ∈ P s.t. ¬(p ⊢ p ∈ C(halts)) ∧ ¬(p ⊢ p ∉ C(halts))) → ((p,s ⊢ p ∈ C(s)) → p is trivial)

Please supply a proof.

Note that it's quite true that

(∃p ∈ P s.t. ¬(p ⊢ p ∈ C(halts)) ∧ ¬(p ⊢ p ∉ C(halts))) → ((p,s ⊢ p ∈ C(s)) → *s* is trivial)

proved usually by reducing s to "halts" for any non-trivial s.

> Again, this is a logical error. Science is not a popularity contest, and in this specific context, straw polls resolve nothing.

I am not deciding it by poll. I am pointing out that there are objections to your reasoning that you have not addressed and persist in not addressing - despite them being made abundantly clear, repeatedly.

> I wonder if you know how to have a discussion like this, in which there are only ideas, no personalities, and no place for ad hominem arguments?

You're accusing me, as a person, of not understanding that a discussion like this has no place for accusations against a person? My complaint was not about you as a person, but about the form of your arguments in this discussion.
Do you feel like Google should take stronger stance for phone manufacturers to update their own software?

I don't think it can be blamed on Google if phone manufacturers don't update their devices fast enough and if Google would take stronger stance in OS updates and manufacturers would jump ship wouldn't Microsoft face same issues?

Or did I miss completely what you meant?
Clearly it doesn't happen often; but if someone makes a significant contribution to a paper the length of time it took to produce is irrelevant.

It has happened before to non-number-people (e.g. http://www.anoleannals.org/2012/01/03/posthumous-co-authorsh...), and it doesn't seem like someone added Erdős' name inappropriately..
The article doesn't say C++ is a bad alternative. Just that he did not use it to avoid complexity.

And yes C and C++ are distinct. But the simple modules can be written in C, but the bigger ones need OOPS, so generally written in C++.
Simply wouldn't work - each train has a driver and a conductor, the driver does not interact with passengers at all (and for safety reasons, probably shouldn't), while the conductor can only oversee his/her immediate surroundings.

The issue goes beyond simply wheelchair-bound passengers, but also the fact that the elderly also ride the trains. There are a large number of people who aren't fully disabled but for whom having a seat is important, so it's not enough to simply reserve a few places for a few individuals.

The 4/5/6 trains are a clusterfuck because they're vastly oversubscribed. The serve the entirety of the Bronx and the hyper-dense Upper East Side, not to mention the entire east side of Manhattan. The solution to this isn't "leave a large demographic of riders in the cold to gain marginal capacity", the solution is "build the f'ing 2nd Ave subway".

There are a large category of improvements to the subway that, while valuable, offer only marginal improvements to capacity. Open-gangway trains can increase per-train passenger capacity by ~5%. CBTC digital train signaling upgrades will get you ~10-20% more capacity by packing trains closer to each other safely. Even stacking a bunch of these improvements together will not resolve the massive capacity deficit the MTA suffers from system-wide. Only new track, new trains, and new stations will.

IMO standing-room-only cars fit in this category. It would give us a bit more capacity, but nowhere near enough to make a real dent on the capacity problem - and this particular "improvement" has a high cost in excluded passengers.

Even if we made all the cars standing room only, you'd still be packed like sardines into the 4/5/6 in the morning, and you'd still have to watch helplessly as multiple trains pass by packed to the brim.
You mean something like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A20_line ?
They have rolled out some of the autopark features. I think all the sold cars required the driver in the seat. The versions that I have tested myself have all been horrible. They were so slow, or required unnatural maneuvers to scan the space. One dealer told me the feature was only for "People who cannot look over their shoulder, you know ... old people." None of them would un-park the car. I still needed the basic parallel parking skills to get out of the spot.
Inside Pinterest and its ad sales operation
If anyone is interested in a modern take on Dungeon Master, checkout Legend of Grimrock.
multi-armed bandits for finding global maximums?

Please refrain from using this arrogant tone, because you only make people laugh.
It's not a tautology. I've tried to explain this twice now, hopefully third time lucky...

Let's start with two questions, if you can answer these it should help us understand why we're not seeing eye to eye:

1. How do you measure merit in a meritocracy?

2. Considering the answer to question 1, is it possible for someone to rise to the top of a meritocracy with an average level of 'merit'?
France is a democracy, but this still happened. Would the French people allow their president to go to war over reasons stated in this cable, if such a permission was needed? This is what secrecy brings.

French military didn't had to assert any position in the world. Every country's military is in a good position to give each other hell.

Did Nicolas do France any good with this decision? A little may be, by taking some of libya's oil resources. Did he do world any favour? No
Your culture drives your presentations every time
I wonder if they controlled for age in this study. Women in the sciences are younger than men (on average), so a dual-female paper is more likely to be from two contemporaries, while a dual-male paper could more easily be from an old prof and a young one. From what I've seen, the more established author tends to get more of the credit/prestige, even though the less-established one tends to do more of the work.
Optmizely did (and does) it wrong because if everybody had to follow to proper procedures they wouldn't have a viable business model.
> The system you outline works perfectly as long as you limit yourself to provable assertions.

Of course. And if a formal system doesn't let you prove the theorems you want, you would just switch formal systems.

> But Gödel's theorems have led to examples of unprovable assertions, thus moving beyond the hypothetical into a realm that might collide with future algorithms likely to be much more complex than typical modern algorithms, including some that may mistakenly be believed to be proven correct.

Programming is applied logic, not religion. And a proof doesn't need to be “believed”, it just has to abide by the rules of a formal system. In some formal systems, like intensional type theory, verifying this is a matter of performing a syntactic check.

> If we're balancing a bank's accounts, I think we're safe.

I wouldn't be so sure.

> In the future, when we start modeling the human brain's activities in code, this topic will likely seem less trivial,

I see this as more of a problem for specification writers than programmers. Since I don't find myself writing specifications so often, this is basically Not My Problem (tm). Even if I wrote specifications for a living, I'm not dishonest or delusional enough to charge clients for doing something I actually can't do, like specifying a program that claims to be an accurate model of the human brain.

> and the task of avoiding "arbitrary programs," and undecidable assertions (or even recognizing them in all cases), won't seem so easy.

I don't see what's so hard about sticking to program structures (e.g., structural recursion) for which convenient proof principles exist (e.g., structural induction).

Please, get yourself a little bit of mathematical education before posting your next reply. You're so stubbornly wrong it's painful to see.
I think the era of focus on static analysis tools has begun. I think all languages are moving in this direction. We have the new C++ Core Guidelines which will eventually be compiler-enforced, there is Rust with its program-proving compiler, and there are these neat tools for C, and no doubt more will flourish in coming years. It is going to be interesting to see where it all goes.
James Long: the Top Secret developer on how video games can change the world
"The bias that Ms. Sarsons documents is so large that it may account on its own for another statistic: Female economists are twice as likely to be denied tenure as their male colleagues."

Aren't they using earned tenure as the metric to determine whether someone did or did not get credit? Seems like that's really just one point then rather than two. Unless I'm missing something.
> Unsupported assertion

It is well supported. History is full of examples of social change resulting from abandoning biases (sometimes freely, though usually due to "encouragement" by other forces, often economic or demographic). From the "Struggle of the Orders" in the Roman republic to the rise of the middle class in Europe, if you are of European descent (and probably even if you are not), then your own education and social standing are likely a result of such change.

> This is anti-inductive. Knowledge can only be contingent based on past experience. This is John Stuart Mill stuff, empiricism.

Quite the contrary. Suppose the dynamics of a system is that it behaves so: -1, 1, -1, 1, -1, etc. If your previous observation was 1, your prediction should empirically be -1. If you are presupposing that the state of the system is unchanging -- and therefore predicting 1 -- that is anti-inductive.

But consider a more interesting system. It can obtain the values 1 and -1, and its initial state is 1, but its future state is identical to your previous prediction. What should your prediction be, then? You cannot make an inductive argument for favoring either prediction, and the correct answer is "whatever you want the result to be".

Finally, consider a more interesting system yet. The first three states are 1, and thereafter the state is the majority of your last three predictions (another interesting next-state formula is: -1, if the previous three predictions are all -1, or 1 otherwise). What should your predictions be, then? The correct answer is still "whatever you want the result to be" (although you may miss a few), but the difference is that this time some people will (incorrectly) argue that predicting 1 is just the "mathematically" right thing to do. It is not. It is simply a system that makes it easy to mistake a conservative policy for a neutral one.

> This does not mean we should just make shit up for some of our sample data/training set.

No, but it does mean we should study society in depth rather than arbitrarily decide that what was is what will continue to be, especially if by making that decision we are forcing that outcome. I propose that we stop making shit up when modeling society by treating past behaviors as future predictions, and instead try to study social dynamics. Once we understand those -- more or less -- we should decide what future outcome we want. Once we know that, we can decide how to factor past data into the system's dynamics so that we can get the outcome we want.

> If you want to enact social change go for it but stop pretending that this has anything to do with statistics, modeling, prediction or math, just go straight to the politics.

I am. I'm just pointing out that no view is neutral. Interpreting past behavior as future behavior is a conservative political action.
We've recently released a couple of tech reports on Hwacha:

Hwacha Vector-Fetch Architecture Manual: https://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/2015/EECS-2015-2...

Hwacha Microarchitecture Manual: https://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/2015/EECS-2015-2...

Preliminary Evaluation Results: https://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/2015/EECS-2015-2...

M.S. Thesis on Mixed Precision in Hwacha: https://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/2015/EECS-2015-2...