skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It is not "relatively easy" to solve. It is exponentially hard. For example, 16 GB RAM means you have about 10^(3*10^10) possible states. That is a 1 followed by 30 million zeroes.

So I guess I'll pick you up in about 10^10^9 years and you tell me how it goes. That is of course assuming that your program does not load new functions from your hard disk at some point which would add more state to you program thus stretching the waiting time even longer.
very nice, feeling like you could be fast with it
Comments moved to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10933330.
How Much Would Donald Trump's American-Made iPhone Actually Cost?
Having been through some difficult times when i had been let down by everyone around me, i came across Brandon Reid who is a hacker its actually impossible to put in words how much of a Genius he is and also cant stop thanking him for helping me through my divorce, and also my Nephews grades. He is a Blackhat hacker and very capable of almost and everything, he is actually one of the best out there and also shows you proof before charging you, in my own case the money wasnt the problem and i can gladly say every money spent was so worth it. I have reffered a number of people who will prefer not to be named to Brandon and all have been immensly satisfied with the Top Notch hacking service Brandon offers.To whoever who is lucky enough to read this its a new year and i am only doing this for those genuine people out there who would want the services of a hacker please as i said before be careful how you speak to him his a BigFish. He can be contacted on his services email Brandonreid001@gmail.com or text +1 813 379 2141 . Do mention the name Jade
> Science is all about reproducibility

Can this really be said in all fairness? What of the flashes of brilliance, the striking insights into understanding seemingly inexplicable phenomena? The discovery of the structure of benzene, the creation of the periodic table comes to mind.
I also recall doing the same sort of dance with linux kernel RAID, (0.90 vs md-style) and also encrypted block devices (cryptoloop to device mapper).

It's nice to remember and realize how stable and performant things are these days.
Limitless (Stop Me Before I Hug Again) Summary and Review
Memories of internet in Australia in the mid-90s. We had a Maestro 33.6k modem, made just down the road in Bungendore. I remember my brother driving out there in the late 90s to upgrade the chipset to 56k. Later he set up IP masquerading on a linux box or maybe a monochrome SPARCstation and we shared the connection over our 10base2 ethernet. Dynamite internet and their controversially cancelled unlimited dial up plans...we needed to get a second phone line.
There's this Greenfoot (http://www.greenfoot.org/) environment I've been hearing about. It has a visual interface that allows you to put sprites and assemble a game, but it also has Java foundations. It might be another option for that transition between a visual tool and a programming language.
Rocket Internet raises $420M in first close of its new giga-fund
Decentralising data distribution  [video]
5 FREE tools to help with your SEO
I think you need to take a step back, because you are analysing your problems at the wrong abstraction level. It sounds like you had an engineering problem, not a programming language one.

Changing the programming language won't prevent newbie programmers from wreaking havoc in your code base, nor improve the software design skills of your colleagues.

On the other hand, I do agree that programming languages have a "culture" which defines the idioms that are accepted, patterns, attitudes towards various practices. My feeling is that hyper-oop programmers have long moved on to Java and .NET.

C has a culture of keeping things simple, because of its long history and limited abstraction possibilities. It's also the favorite refuge of people that hate OOP, so no surprise you won't see over-engineered OOP hierarchies.
There was (and still is!) a great web site for this, letting you see where the various "Dial Up Networking" screens were in Windows: http://www.chasms.com/
The vitriol in a bunch of these comments makes me ashamed of this community.

If you just want to be mean about someone, kindly do it elsewhere.
Busting 100+ year legacy of those cursed spring lock washers with a 2 min. demo
The Graveyard Shift: We Talked to a Flight Attendant About Ambien and Pillows
Designing read receipts
Raymond E Peck III on Twitter
Just as a PSA, there are zillions of _very_ nice $300-$350 15w TDP Broadwell x86 boxes, with 4-8GB RAM, 64/128GB SSD, bundled WiFi, and dual gigabit ethernet ports on aliexpress. I don't know why there are so many broadwell boxes on offer, but these are a stellar deal for the price, and are fully solid state, super flexible, extremely fast anything x86 boxes.

For example:
http://www.aliexpress.com/item/Fanless-i5-Mini-PC-Windows-Ba...

I initally looked on Amazon and found the fitlet-i, which is nice for a 4.5w TDP AMD box..

http://www.fit-pc.com/web/products/specifications/fitlet-mod...

.. but these aliexpress deals are far better, and easily 3x faster if you can afford the 15w TDP budget.
Here's the author's story, the making of:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2283693

Hint: from scratch, reading RFCs, in Turbo Pascal, as a part of his internet newsreader project!

Also, http://petertattam.com is down currently, but

http://www.trumpet.com.au

Works.
What's up with all the criticism. Jealous much?

While browsing this I found it to be inspiring and beautiful. Way better than anything some companies that call themselves "design" put out for BIG $$$.

Screw all the negative energy here. Go man, go. You are the real deal among all the fake critics-designers.
We detach off-topic subthreads because then the ranking algorithm can push them to the bottom of the page.
This post is really old.
Even Scala has improved in startup time.
I don't think that numbers from 2012 are reasonable.

Especially when Java 1.8 will hit these languages. It reduces build times and startup times since these lanaguages could share their bytecode when it comes to lambda's and such things.
With -Xexperimental on Scala 2.11 and changing some things to lambda it will reduce the code size by 10-15% which is a lot in such a big codebase. And I think closure will have such stuff, too. This also means faster startup times.
Also Java 9 and Java 10 will also help these languages to improve.
Obviously I'm playing devil's advocate here, but no heist of major proportions is momentary; it requires months of careful planning. I guess it's comparable to an achievement in sports - the actual event doesn't last long, but getting there does.

For someone who sees law as essentially a social, artificial construct (who hasn't internalized this notion), every career is about outsmarting others anyway, in one way or another.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10936027 and marked it off-topic.
I would be interested as well, it seems like the site should have been updated since then. Also I wonder what percentage of donations are a result of links to HN/reddit/social media rather than organic?
This is all speculation and not based on any real data.

Full, immediate, public disclosure is also reasonable.
Uh... excuse me, Mr. President? That's not entirely accurate.

[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116629/quotes?item=qt0388832]
Attacking an entire population like that breaks the HN guidelines, which call for civil discourse. Please don't do this.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10932362 and marked it off-topic.
nope... they are just dummy texts. think about its a kind of notebook. helps you to remember all the changes while making the commit... pops those notes in to your commit message.
It has become really confusing to get started with .NET. There's a ton of stuff just from Microsoft, and it's kinda hard to understand how everything fits together.

I recently did a project where we wanted to a small built in webserver. Understanding how all the OWIN stuff fits together and knowing which libraries to use is hard than doing the actual coding. For a compiled language it's confusing that your code will compile, but not work, because you forgot a "using".

Go is younger and therefore doesn't have the baggage of .NET or Java, but it's a good example of how simple a "development environment" can be. It's not alone, Python, Lua and others are also much much easier to get started with, without being bombarded by a ton of acronyms and surrounding infrastructure libraries.
Anyone who works on a large system written in any paradigm can see the same "disaster" -- at least so far[1]. What so far differentiates paradigms that claim they are immune to those problems (or other problems with similar severity, some of them perhaps unknown as of yet) is that they have never been put to the test on projects of the same magnitude (i.e., same codebase size, same team size, same project lifespan[2]), let alone in enough problem domains, so they haven't had a chance to encounter "disaster inducing scenarios", and therefore haven't reported disasters yet. What we have now is paradigms that we know to be problematic -- but also effective to some degree (large or small, depending on your perspective) -- and paradigms that we don't know enough about: they could turn out to be more effective, just as effective or even less effective (or they could be any of the three depending on the problem domain).

How can we know if we should switch to a different paradigm? Empirical data. So please, academic community and the software industry: go out and collect that data! Theoretical (let along religious) arguments are perhaps a valid starting point, but they are ultimately unhelpful in making a decision. In fact, it has been mathematically proven that they can contribute little to the discussion: the theoretical difficulty in constructing a correct program is the same regardless of the abstractions used[3]; only cognitive effects -- which can only be studied empirically -- could provide arguments in favor of a certain paradigm making it easier for humans to write correct code.

[1]: As someone who worked on software written in procedural code before the popularity of OOP, it wasn't any better (actually, it was worse). For contemporary examples, see Toyota's car software.

[2]: Those are, of course, proxies for "very complex requirements, both functional and structural", but the point stands.

[3]: The cost of verifying/constructing a correct program is at least linear in the size of the program's state-space (or, more precisely, its Kripke structure, which also includes transitions) regardless of representation in code or abstractions used to make it more succinct. E.g., "Kripke structures that admit a succinct representation are not simpler for model checking purposes
than arbitrary Kripke structures" (http://www.lsv.ens-cachan.fr/Publis/PAPERS/PDF/Sch-aiml02.pd...), and model checking can be reduced to any other verification/construction methodology.
Sad that they skipped wifi, then ignored the ubiquity edgerouter, at least 2 of which are cheaper than what they reviewed.
This was already discussed by Bozhidar Batsov at last year's ClojureX talk:

https://skillsmatter.com/skillscasts/7225-cider-the-journey-...

I think that particular point is somewhere towards the end of the talk.
Webpack Your Workflow
After reading enough of these articles, one comes to a disturbing conclusion: a lot of software engineering practices and a lot of "common sense" knowledge are based on anecdotes, blog posts, famous engineers' declarations or arguments on the internet.

It shouldn't be very difficult to prove that a particular programming paradigm is better along some axis than another.
I think it's great that Brian is happy and more productive, but that has no meaning to me if I want to make an informed decision about FP.
Things are actually looking much better now for the MUD i help run.
Websockets made it possible to bring the game to a whole new crowd without requiring them to install some odd telnet thing.
We had a few years when things did not look good at all and player numbers dropped every month.
Took about 2 years to catch them all but that was only due to the criminals having no idea how to fence their stolen loot http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/spectacular-3...
AnyMP4 Blu-Ray Player Crack 6.1.76 Registration Code Free
Yup, lots of cross Gold users on the blog.
It also has a head start over the competitors. This might sound like not a big deal, but it has already some very vocal supporters in the blogosphere who've been recommending it for ages.

The only way it can fuck up is if it goes the Evernote way
The problem with OOP is that doing it at all is so easy. Its abstractions makes a lot of sense to beginners and experts alike. Its biggest flaw is that doing it well is so fantastically hard. It requires a level of discipline and experience that most developers simply never attain, because they don't do it long enough. I don't think 1% of the worlds OO developers have it (I sure don't after more than 10 years of full time OOP).

The trick to sane OOP is doing as little of it as possible. When you maximize the number of pure methods, minimize mutable state, minimize inheritance and so on, you are doing OOP well.
Yes, the chip (or sub-chip) in your phone that talks to the mobile network is still called a modem, and is still controlled with the AT command set. When you answer a call it sends "ata" (AT Answer) to the modem. It does not pick up AT commands from the data passing through, unlike the old modems.
FYI those fake personal emails are totally obvious and everyone hates the fake sincerity.
Driver vs. Passenger Client Engagements
Ask HN: Would you pay monthly to work from coffee shops, with free coffee?
I'm thinking of a flat fee per month, giving you all-day access to any coffee shop within a network, including free coffee and dedicated tables.

Working from a coffee shop has been shown to boost productivity:

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/06/study-of-the-day-why-crowded-coffee-shops-fire-up-your-creativity/258742/

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/technology/techs-frightful-5-will-dominate-digital-life-for-foreseeable-future.html?ref=business&_r=0
As I see mathematics as somewhat like the act of traversing, exploring, and constructing a hypergraph built fundamentally of pointers where the cliques and common paths are named simply for economical reasons for quick addressing, it clearly can increase the probability of doing great science no matter what field you are.

I'd still say that you can still do great science although you do not know the formal language of mathematics, but the probability of getting to the position of doing the science today is harder because we have more aggressive naked alpha monkeys protecting their turfs from those they see less worthy of joining the adventure.
Feature toggles are useful but should be used with great care, especially in complex codebases. There are challenges to using them. If you aren't careful or don't have very good test coverage you can break unknown sections of code.

The other pain is removing them, again if not done carefully or with very good test coverage you can unknowingly break things.
GCHQ-built phone voice encryption has massive backdoor
The OS X UX has demonstrably more discoverability than any other contemporary OS, and certainly much less "mystery meat" than Windows.

The shortcuts are consistent across all Mac apps, are discoverable (and completely modifiable) from System Preferences -> Keyboard -> Shortcuts, or from Help -> Search in any app.

Trackpad and mouse gestures are shown, with videos in fact, in System -> Trackpad and System -> Mouse.
Ask HN: Whats a good book to learn Startup 'Mathematics'?
In retrospect it was inevitable. The patterns of thinking that we take for granted around iteration and prototyping were still too alien. You have to get it before you can do it, and the types of programmers who were inclined to get it weren't in decision-making positions.

Another great story that Larman told was that he tracked down some of the programmers on famous waterfall projects that had succeeded, and found out that what they had really done was write code first, secretly, and then write up the requirements and design docs based on what they had learned. In other words they did things in the 'wrong' order but published them in the 'right' order.
Travel content for your travel startup
Sourced is a new way of recruiting software developers
> Socket server and socket server REPL - adds the ability to allow remote Clojure REPL connections

Now that's something!
Who cares? Seems like it's a pain in the ass to support a custom fork of signal, for little or no value.

Why not just use signal and skip the special cyanogen version?
And after those you can try the "Joy of Clojure".
I find it troubling that students are put off by the notion that knowing mathematics is required to do X.
Mathematics needs a PR campaign (and maybe better teachers?).

I've noticed that a large number of our students are scarred of taking any courses that could possibly be related to math.
I agree that this would be great, but this is not a new idea, people have been talking about these things since 2008-ish. Unless you have a firm proposal, I think we're at exactly the same place as we've always been: everyone agrees that it'd be nice, but noone has any idea how to make it happen[0].

The useful work also has to happen as a byproduct of the blockchain securing calculations, because if it's seperate, the blockchain will offer worse security properties than a competing blockchain with similar hashing power, so there's a disincentive to use it.

[0] There was PrimeCoin, which computed some series purported to be mathematically interesting. Math people I've talked to mostly shrugged their shoulders when I asked them whether that work had any real applications.
> Who knows if the internet would be everywhere today if the Windows users had been left out

I can answer that for you: yes, it would be. The value proposition is among the greatest that has existed in all of human history. The hardware was ready, the price was low enough, nothing was going to stop it; lack of a layperson standard mass-consumer OS would have just slowed it down briefly until one was inevitably created.
Chrome's multiple profile support can be a big help here if you're that determined to separate things. Set up a profile for personal stuff, and one for work stuff, and then you can have both accounts logged in at once.
> When you maximize the number of pure methods, minimize mutable state, minimize inheritance and so on, you are doing OOP well.

Odd, that's also how you do functional programming well.

(As regards functional programming languages not having inheritance as such, well, if you don't do any inheritance you're certainly minimizing it.)

More and more, I feel that mutable state is really an advanced topic and should be treated with the kind of suspicion we usually reserve for multiple indirection and undisciplined use of the goto statement.
Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

If you want to argue that most hip dynamic languages will allow faster development than most hip static languages in many situations? Sure, I'll buy that. E.g. jumping from C++ to Ruby for a bit was, for many of the projects I worked on, a major productivity boost.

But I buy it because it's got enough weasel words, and it's focused on the languages in practice rather than the actual language attribute. Because I can think of clear and concrete examples where adding static typing helped: E.g. using Typescript to add static typing information to existing Javascript. This massively improved my speed in picking up new APIs via judicious abuse of Intellisense. And typescript as I'm using it is doing very little more than just adding static type information - much closer to purely comparing static vs dynamic typing than any combination of languages I can spot on these charts.

The article's statistics doesn't measure the productivity difference of static typing vs dynamic typing - it measures certain statically typed languages vs certain dynamically typed languages (among a million other caveats.) C++ vs Python? The biggest difference there isn't static vs dynamic - the former is weighed down by some of the most cumbersome explicit type annotation in existence (when explicit type info isn't fundamental to static typing at all). Worse, it has the nastiest grammar causing horrible build times, an absolutely insane dependency system, and a standard so absolutely rife with implementation defined, unspecified, and undefined behavior that it doesn't even define the size of it's common integer types. And I've yet to meet a C++ codebase that doesn't use it's common integer types.

The article also dismisses type errors too lightly, IMO. "Out of 670,000 issues only 3 percent were type errors (errors a static typed language would have caught)". But does this include such things as SQL injections, where SQL Data was mistakenly treated as SQL Commands? While most APIs don't leverage the type system to differentiate these in a way that will cause errors (be it at runtime or build time), I do consider this a type error, one that could be caught with type system. Unfortunately, handling the single vanilla string type you typically get tends to take precedence over creating such a type separation...
More importantly, they are pushing people towards Signal. Are those same "various countries" also pushing them to push us to use Signal, and if so why?
About 70% of the space is taken by documentation. You can delete that and read the docs online.
I just got back from 2 weeks in Myanmar and it's a fascinating country.

I was very surprised that many of the Buddhist monks you see walking around carry smart-phones and tablets! It threw me for a loop when I saw a monk inside a pagoda playing Candy Crush on his iPad.

Edit: one of the monks on his iPad http://s11.postimg.org/y473yqjk3/12486068_10205302771587155_...
Nah, advanced physics still requires a strong physical intuition. I'll wager that coming up with novel and interesting solutions to physics like amplituhedron [1] requires a large dose of intuition. It also requires formidable mathematical chops, but not nearly as much as similar methods in string theory and similar require. Basically there's a base level of "good mathematics" which helps with physics, after which it's handy but not necessary. Sort of like IQ vs income, where greater IQ tends to mean greater income up to IQ's of about 120-130. Afterwords it's a wash.

What the OP means by saying that Einstein (or Feynman) didn't excel at mathematics mean they didn't excel vis-à-vis noted mathematicians or other physicists at raw mathematical formalism. One example of this would be the different approaches to study quantum electrodynamics by Schwinger and Feynman [2]. There's a funny version Feynman recounts in one of his memoirs, but essentially he developed (Feynman) diagrams to calculate particle probabilities while Schwinger preferred (formal) algebras.

PS I'd recommend reading "Sure you're joking, Mr Feynman!" if you want anecdotal stories about physics and insight in Feynman's famed "intuition".

[1]: https://www.quantamagazine.org/20130917-a-jewel-at-the-heart...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Schwinger#Schwinger_and...
There are several thousands of documentation pages with very rich evaluatable examples, many of which return graphics.
every career is about outsmarting others anyway, in one way or another

I'm a person with a career, and I don't waste my time trying to figure out how to outsmart other people. (I don't think I could anyway.) I don't know about you, but solving the actual problems I encounter at work (problems which are obviously not attributable to people) are enough for me!