skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Seems quite useless to me. For, what if you want to prefix the file with a header first, or add a trailer? Or what if you want to escape certain parts, or zip the file before sending? Or if you want to send the file incrementally?

The BSD variant supports headers and trailers, and even if it didn't you're under no obligation to not use other system calls to send data on the socket.

If you're running the kind of workload where sendfile() is valuable you would tend to pre-cache variants that you intended to serve. Consider: why escape the file every time I serve it rather than doing it once?

Even if you did some of these transforms on-the-fly, you can still benefit from sendfile() by caching the transformed version of the file in a tmpfs mount and serving future requests for the same variant from the cached version (with sendfile()).

> If you really want something like sendfile, you could also just find the right library.

Due to the nature of BSD sockets you cannot implement sendfile() in a library. The write() system call (and its vectorized equivalents, along with send(), sendmsg(), etc.) all make a copy of the data to be sent into kernel network buffers[0]. This copy from user mode to kernel mode accounts for the bulk of the computational cost of building a static HTTP server, for example, and can become the bottleneck in terms of maxing out the performance of said server. sendfile() is able to elide this copy by taking advantage of kernel-resident filesystem caches. For any given file the first call to sendfile() will bring the file into memory; assuming a sufficient small corpus (or a sufficiently lucky eviction strategy) the bulk of files served can be served directly from kernel memory.

Also, it's certainly lighter weight than putting the entire HTTP server in the kernel (which, as I understand it, is what Microsoft did at some point for IIS).

[0]: With a sufficiently enlightened memory management system in the kernel one could potentially make these zero-copy for data that was, say, mmap()'d. This would offer the potential for sendfile() like performance from a user-mode library, but would require much more delicate plumbing of memory mapped pages through the networking subsystem.
With CMake it is possible to run the tool as part of the normal build process [1]. Not as nice as first class compiler support, but still quite helpful as part of day to day development, I find.

[1] http://stackoverflow.com/questions/30951492/how-to-use-the-t...
Yes that's the one - pretty amazing stuff.
Anonymous downmods? Ok...

If your language only has features from some other language, you are replicating work.
P1: That was my fault, I didn't state that clearly. I should have said "The valid principles of induction define that line..." We have the principles of deduction that tell us when something is false but we are missing the principles of induction that tell use when something is true (in a given context). This is a general need so it spans all theories in all fields; how do we know and are certain the sun will rise, evolution is true, there ARE atoms, etc. There must be a criteria by which to say, in the current context of knowledge we know enough to say something is true and certain.

P2: You anticipated my answer, Kant/Popper is an end-run evading the issue, i.e., we can only prove thing false never true and certain. The truth is unattainable. I think it is a valid question and needs to be solved. But to solve it we need a full, valid epistemology explaining how reason works in toto to achieve certain knowledge.

I think this is the same problem as in physics and all the contradictions and paradoxes in QM and GR. Physics is hung up on all sorts of confusing issues that seem to revolve around the nature of the observer and time. This makes sense to me because deduction is based on a metaphysical fact that contradictions do not exist which we (try) to abide. But this is half the story, what is missing is an epistemological principle that tells us what our brains do to create true knowledge. Whoever solves this problem will revolutionize physics and allow us to create AI (in my judgement).
I doubt it - I've started seeing this on consumer routers. The BT one came with the random password printed on a convenient piece of plastic slotted into the router.
It probably wouldn't be. Median US household income is about $50K. So as a rough cut, households making more than about that would presumably end up putting more money in. There aren't enough of "the rich" to make a dent by themselves.
I'm not sure that it would.. the next sentence says that the shirt expands when worn and 2x more in the chest than the length.. that says to me that its not the weave, its just being stretched more in the chest direction so the length never recovers from its shrinking which becomes cumulative.
I'll beg to differ. The Targets I frequent are cleaner, better stocked, better quality clothing items (but let's not fool ourselves here), and the aisles and endcaps also are not clogged with tables full of stuff. My Target is better staffed than my WalMart, and they will open new lanes once things start stacking up.

Target also offers an EFT card that discounts 5% off your total and (up until this spring) kicked 1% of the total to the school of your choice. Our elementary school has earned a few thousand dollars over the life of the program. The card also gives free shipping on online orders.

So, to me, it's not an equivalent.
I think this is because the shirt is stretched horizontally just from being worn but obviously there's no forces stretching the shirt vertically because any force that would stretch it vertically just raises the bottom instead
You pretty much hit the nail on the head. The clothes I get from Target last much longer than those I bought at Walmart.

Also, the staff are much easier to get a hold of.
Complicating matters was the dummy information entered into the system when SAP was set up. That dummy data was still there, confusing the system, and it had to be expunged

Testing in production, good job.

Sounds like a typical systems integration fail, IT incompetents trying to hook up SAP, JDA, Manhattan, and NCR with no clue how much time and money it really takes to assemble such a complex systems infrastructure, and getting fleeced by consultants in the process.
I mostly agree and I find that most of the arguments put forth in favor of UBI seem relatively narcissistic in nature (Your startup fails and you end up on the street? Yeah, not my problem actually, nor would it be my problem if you spent your entire paycheck on losing powerball tickets etc).

That said, I think Martin Ford has made a decent case towards imposing an automation tax to fund the UBI for displaced workers. And I agree 100% that the only way this is remotely viable is in a society where there is insanely excess productive capacity such as what is likely to happen with the automation of jobs.
"To know if it's statically significant,it's not important if the benchmark use the arithmetic or the geometric mean.
"

Of course, but i was answering whether 0.5% matters, not whether it is valid.

This is explicitly why i said "assuming you are accurately measuring the parts".

It seems you are just making a side point for the heck of it, despite completely agreeing with what i said.
Donald Rumsfeld has released a solitaire app for iOS
Yeah, `interleave` is the best. In a large program it would be located in a Stream module, making it clear from context, not just the type. If you were using it somewhere else, you would just import it qualified and use it as S.interleave or Stream.interleave.

At this point, I've come to believe that having too many functions with a set prefix or postfix is a code smell that's telling you to organize them into a module. Putting stream-related functions into a module has the same effect as naming them all with "-Stream" except it's actually part of the language and more flexible.
Verifying that invalid credentials are rejected by the part that checks credentials is one thing, and I'd expect this to be an obvious test case. But to

> verifies that known invalid credentials don't permit access

you need a second test: "use invalid credentials, then try to download file, expect failure", i.e. a sequence of actions in a single test.

That test is evidently missing from my heating system's web interface, which has exactly this problem. There's a box to type in a PIN code, and it lets you proceed / retry correctly. But it's not necessary to bother with this, you can change the temperature without authenticating if you know the URL.
How Startups and Corporations Can Partner Without Killing Each Other
It's extremely common to write unit tests that only test success cases but not error cases. It's pretty much a special case of confirmation bias, as illustrated by the classic "2-4-6 task" (implemented here as 2-4-8, but it's the same idea):

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/03/upshot/a-quick...

You're totally right that you should have a unit test that verifies failure with invalid credentials, not just success with valid credentials. But a lot of programmers are not as smart as you are here!
The conclusions are in the headlines and further details can be found in the paragraphs below. I think it was easy to skim through and get a good picture of their takeaways.
Wow, I had no idea the Holy See had its own Netflix region.
Not the author, but anyway; I'm not sure you can release on one variable and acquire on an other while having ordering guarantee between the two.

Anyway, I agree that having both acq and rel on both reader on writer side seems weird. I guess you can come with a solution with only one rel for the writer and only one acq for the reader.

UPDATE: I'm stupid, actually not possible if you don't want to overflow.
Your life is Tetris. Stop playing it like Chess
I was looking at the start of this comment, which I found merely wrong, and then I got to the end.

Wat.

An approximately rational truth seeking community can reasonably be expected to come to a reasonably good approximation of the truth, compared to what they have access to. As such, such a community can be used as an (approximate) indicator of the truth.

Moral relativism can fall down a well. (emphasis on the ism. I don't mean ists. It is a rhetorical statement, not a literal one.)
"Exploits are always changing" is not really a meaningful objection, because it applies to every way that one might try to ensure security short of only deploying software and systems that have been mathematically proven to be secure.

The vast majority of exploits against IoT devices do not involve new exploits. They involve ridiculously ancient exploits, like finding plaintext passwords embedded in the firmware, or adding something like "&admin=1" to the end of a URL.

If we could get to the point where breaking an IoT device requires something like finding a hole in, say, the TLS protocol (or in a widespread TLS library), rather than just looking because the damn thing doesn't use encryption at all, we'd be vastly better off than we are now.

This is what I meant when I said, "I'd be happy for now just having some rules to try to make it so IoT device breaches are mostly due to bugs in the implementation of a good design, rather than due to the producers not having a clue about security".

Right now far too many devices are vulnerable even if they are 100% bug free.
The best for me to read upfront a bit and understand the big picture well, then dig into, do something with it. If I don't understand parts, I read it again and code it again. I rewrite things all the time :) as I learn new concepts.
I'm guessing highcharts.com, since I had to enable scripts from there to get them to show.
Ah, this explains it! I was thinking about the loop as presented and it seemed to boil down to "do your data flow correctly" but the situation is more subtle.
Phobias are not normal fear. Your statement is akin to equating anger or frustration with mass murder.
I guess what parent meant was that using some "smart" stuff locally (same room, same house, same LAN) can be useful.

To put your example in the perspective : how much useful would it be to operate the TV remote over the internet ? Yeah, it sounds cool that I've set the TV to channel 5, but I'm not there to watch it anyway, so it's kinda useless. Only thing that is now possible is some other people jerking around with the remote.
I think it's a little bit of this, a little bit of that. We need regulation to attempt to enforce baseline security practices (e.g. no passwords in cleartext, encryption during authentication, etc), since that can be proactive if not comprehensive. In addition to that, we need stronger consumer advocacy and liability for the more complicated, unanticipated cases.

> We'd have to find a balance though, as we are already way too litigious and we'd be stifling innovation out of fear of getting accused of negligence.

If we're "way too litigious" to the point of stifling innovation, then I think the problem and solution are in a completely different area than this.
Both of these businesses have what are called supply-side network effects (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect), which are not as strong as demand-side effects, but can still lead to dominant market positions. In more concrete terms this means that for you as a consumer, there is no DIRECT additional value of someone else joining the service (you don't care if your friend joins Uber), but the value of the service does go up with every additional supplier that joins the network (for Uber, this would mean shorter wait times when you want a car, etc.) The defensibility of these types of services is created through their supplier network, and their ability to create more value for those suppliers (and consequently consumers as well) that the competition. Uber / AirBnB can then use the revenue from their leading market position to innovate faster than their competition, create more services for consumers, pay for distribution / new customer acquisition, spend money on marketing and awareness, etc. all of which leads to them creating a massive moat around their market that makes it nearly impossible for anyone to compete with them.
It seems that your view is that if someone falls prey to psychological manipulation to do something that is not in their interests, or feels bad or guilty if they resist, then that is purely their responsibility. This is a sociopath's view of the world.

At this point you may not like the way what I just said is making you feel.

According to you, there's nothing wrong with that.

To address your point about empathy - empathy is a faculty we have for understanding what other people feel like and thus be better able to live together as social beings.

An advertising network doesn't feel anything. Making a machine present words and images that induces feelings of empathy towards it is psychological manipulation.

Whether this is wrong or not is of course open to debate, but let's at least tell it like it is.
I would love to see the size dataset expand to casual and dress buttonups, and even jeans. A bit of data like this will greatly improve my shopping experience.
Okay, I'm reading the TechCrunch article you linked to, and I come across this:

In this case, the video was the minimum viable product. The MVP validated Drew’s leap-of-faith assumption that customers wanted the product he was developing not because they said so in a focus group or because of a hopeful analogy to another business, but because they actually signed up.

I think this is a very interesting quote. For one thing, it urges us to expand our notion of what a product is. It isn't necessarily an actual working piece of software; it can be a mock-up or faked demo -- but in any case it's still something that can be shown to potential customers.

But the question that some of us are raising is, when could the video be called an MVP? The answer we would suggest is, it becomes an MVP only after it receives an enthusiastic response from the market. Note that the Ries quote is completely consistent with this interpretation: by the time Ries wrote it, the video had received such a response. Our argument is that while Drew Houston was making the video, it wasn't an MVP yet: it was only an experiment, an attempt at making an MVP, but not yet a validated MVP.

So I disagree that "MVP" is "a term of art and can't really be broken down word by word". Rather, I think that people haven't understood exactly what Ries and Blank mean by it.
Have you tried shirts from skateboarding/extreme sports brands? They tend to be longer but relatively not much wider.
If so, why haven't I ever seen a dryer that starts hot and transitions to cool as the clothes dry out?

I'm pretty sure that all of the three dryers we've had in the last twenty years had a permanent press setting that does exactly that. Our current one certainly does, and it's just the front-loader that was on sale at Home Depot, nothing fancy.
Then... how can you really tell what The Real "The Real McCoys" really are?
Shadowy tech brokers that deliver your data to the NSA
The US is hardly the only country to block foreign investment / sales/mergers with foreign corporations on "national security" or "national interest" grounds. Here in Australia we have the Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB) which does much the same thing. I guess one difference is that the US is a much larger population and economy than Australia's, so when the US does it is more likely to be newsworthy on a global scale. Also, there are many high tech firms headquartered in the US, relatively few in Australia; most of the similar stories in Australia tend to revolve around mining, agriculture, and public infrastructure such as ports (and are thus less interesting to a site like HN).
Where I live, Walmart is like DMV.

You need to avoid going there at the beginning of the month, after work, Saturday afternoon, Sunday night, after 9 etc. There's either 2/30 lines open, or 15/30 with 300 people waiting.

If you go, they don't merchandise. They cut the top off a box of food and throw it on the shelf. The workers suck because the workplace sucks.

Target, the prices are same or better, selection is different (i.e. You can't get car parts or hunting gear), and the staff is much more useful.
To add: I write Java, Node, PHP, and Python primarily. I used Windows for years, but was alway frustrated by the differences of my development environment and my deployment environment (Linux web servers). Also the complete shitshow of command line support was just getting to be too much to deal with.

Around 2005 I tried switching to Ubuntu Desktop, then Mint, then Fedora, then... but Jesus was that painful. The worst and last straw was when I went to Walmart corporate HQ as a consultant and the Linux drivers refused to allow me to Auth to their wifi due to whatever handshake problems they were having. Switching over to Windows- it just worked.

As soon as Mac switched to the Intel processors and the laptop bodies that didn't look like toys, I gave OS X a shot on a Hackintosh, then went out and bought my first MBP. I've NEVER looked back. When I have to do things in Windows (like use Visual Studio to write .NET) it just HURTS.

I also forget the link (maybe it was a consumer reports?) but they said the highest rated Windows laptop you could buy was a MacBook Pro- and had been for four straight years.

You do pay a brand tax when you buy one, but they really are consistently good pieces of hardware- certainly by mainstream manufacturer standards (Dell, HP, etc).

Long story short:

- Handsome aluminum body cases (completely my opinion)

- Linux like command line

- Good shell/command line support

- Decent GUI

- Decent stability and performance of the OS

- Good to really good hardware

- Windows support if you need it via Bootcamp/Parallels

- Retina displays

- The trackpad is f%#£ing magical
The most famous eSports pro players in LoL, Dota2 and CS:GO
I've used it for a long time and it makes the difference between feeling sleepy in front of a computer and falling asleep in front of a computer. Highly recommend it.
This would require an very long answer, but the short version is we only concentrate on Sanger sequencing. It is an open secret that Sanger sequencing never went away. The large genome centers sold off all their sequencers and they were bought by small facilities and companies around the world. These are all still being used.

Sanger sequencing is far from dead as none of the NGS sequencers are as good at what Sanger sequencing excels at which is sequencing short sections of DNA. This demand is still there.
Having used 4g for calls all the time, that has never been a problem. Conferencing is fairly latency tolerant.

Games are always the exception, but I'm not sure how many would truly value low latency in games over the aggregate savings of millions not having to supply and support wired uplinks in the last mile.

But I'm not really talking about places you already get 20+ mbps by wire - I'm talking about places like my grandmothers town in rural PA where 4G coverage and speed can be up to 10x faster than the low rate dsl / cable options available to her ranging from 1.5 to 10 mbit. Whenever I visit sprint 4g is 50mb/s and her best landline option is 10mbit residential cable from the township.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'valid' or 'matters' or the difference between them though.

I'm asking if it is more likely that the 0.5% difference is due to the change in the implementation than normal variation in the original implementation.

I don't know how you can say that this is the case based only on the information that it's a geometric mean. You need to know the variation in the reference implementation, and you don't.

The facts that he measured an increase of performance of 0.5% and he used a geometric mean are not enough information to say that it's statistically significant.
Interesting, it was my impression that the release/acquire are not specific to a memory location. They are just barriers, aren't they? But as I said I'm just learning.
This is really interesting. Do you have a recommendation for a good quantum computing intro book?
The most maddening things is that even within a brand, size, S,M,L, etc. are inconsistent, never mind hoping there would be consistency of measurement across brands.

Their charts expose this onconsistency. Some brands Mack Weldon, is more consistent than say American Apparel.

Even when objective measures like pants waist size in inches, typically a size 32" actually 34" --I guess to make people think they are thinner tan they actually are.
Had to work 30 hrs a week? So did I. But I look at that as a major advantage. The experience I acquired as well as the 'adulting' life skills gave me an incredible headstart over my peers, who think I was 'born lucky' to have those skills.
Is it possible to download the bulk data, e.g. CSV files via FTP, for noncommercial use in a personal database?
Top Ways to Save Money on Electric Bill
Since I installed F.lux on my work computer I've experienced a significant decrease in eye fatigue and a general increase in productivity while working at night.

Would recommend for anyone who works in low-light conditions.
It's a benchmark engineered to measure the performance of compilers and CPUs. It's healthy to be skeptical but in general if you get a better score, it's a real improvement. You should be able to safely exclude measurement errors and other mundane issues.

These benchmarks have a slight issue that they might not represent real world performance, but compilers and CPUs tend to be optimized against them - because their timing and measurement is generally more reliable than ad-hoc real world measurement. It might lead to slight "over-optimization" which doesn't reflect real performance but at least it's reliable and repeatable.
> SAP, Accenture

I'm surprised they opened at all.
> it gets rather complicated to formalize when you try to reconcile universe splitting with special relativity

Why? And why is it more of a problem for MWI than other interpretations?