skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
There are a number of benefits to concepts:

- They make namespacing of functions easier, eliminating the need for C++'s "argument-dependent lookup". The issues here are somewhat subtle and would take a lot of space to explain. But the end result is that we can remove a massive amount of confusion by getting rid of ADL.

- Error messages are much better, because the insides of templates never leak to users of the template.

- Typechecking is simplified, because we only have to typecheck each template once, at the time of definition, as opposed to repeatedly typechecking it from scratch every time it's instantiated. This, in theory, allows compilation to be faster.
Ah, I tend to define "debug" not as "the act of using a debugger tool" but as "diagnosing the broken things".

Makes me fairly useful in a crisis, but possibly less so in this thread.

I would think a remote debugger would work just fine in a container, at least once you documented how, but to zokier's point the only reason you'd do that is if the problem isn't repeatable outside the container. To me that means a couple possibilities. Bug in the docker scripts, bug in the unikernal generator, or a timing issue, which a debugger won't help you with very much (timing bugs are often also heisenbugs)
In other words, the audience is completely emotional and is unable to see the good traits of someone because they don't like their politics.

HN everyone
Ask HN: How to pick up Clojure for web dev? (coming from RoR background)
I am an RoR developer and would like to know the best way to pick up Clojure for web dev. Looking for something like an Mhartl tutorial equivalent.
Basic income creates a more robust consumer base with fewer workers, allowing you to get better jobs from your willingness to work. You won't have to work harder, your wages will go up because you are willing to work at all.

Also you would likely pay the same taxes. Remember the system gives you (and bill gates) money too. But still taxes on income. If you're making over 150k, then yea maybe you might pay more for this system. On the other hand you already control more resources than 99% of the people in the world.
Tell that to Canadians that had their currency dropped like a stone. They need to feed their families while the prices of fresh food doubled
Poly blends are not going to noticeably get smaller wash to wash. They will get worse-looking though, as they don't shrink consistency - only the cotton shrinks, not the polyester.
Your premise relies on the idea that without the (rather severe) consequence of becoming homeless, people will not be inclined to work. I just don't buy it. I don't think that if you remove the draconian consequences of not working a shitty job, that people will suddenly just sit at home and watch jeopardy all day.

And the people that would sit at home watching jeopardy all day regardless -- would you really want to employ them? This probably won't be a well received idea, but not every person is actually economically useful, at least not in the current system. Unemployment is high because to a certain extent, there's probably 5-10% of the population that most companies look at and go "yeah, we probably don't need that".

I'm not saying scarcity no longer exists, but the US government literally sets excess grain on fire to subsidize farmers. When people starve to death, its not because we don't have enough food, it's because the food doesn't make it to the people that need it. Our biggest societal health problem is that people are getting too fat.

The whole "you need to work for the food you eat" system is based on a context that hasn't existed in first world countries for quite a while.
Interesting concept, but file tags would have to be an OS-level thing.
You touch on actually another part of the question that I haven't heard discussed much. Many UBI proponents suggest that it would allow people to allocate smaller portions of their lives to "earning a little more" rather than their whole time on one job, but is the economy even set up (or able to evolve sufficiently) to support this? Additionally, would WE be ok with it? There's already a lot of push-back around buzzwords like "gig economy", and that would seem more prevalent in an era of ad-hoc work as needed for luxuries.
Why specifically are you worried about that?
There are multiple moderators, so no, that is not an example of the "royal we".
GCC: Improve on memory cost in coloring pass of register allocator
Hello, I've ben looking for a travel site like this, for example if I have a family of 3, live in Toronto and have a budget of $3k - $4k, where can I go to a tropical beach for a few days (flexible days but need a few days to prepare)?

I just tried it and it didn't work too well for me:

- currency is in Euros
- time was fixed to 4 days' vacation couldn't figure out how to change
- no range for budget
- I asked for "beach" and the results were: Baltimore, Beijing, Berlin, Bucharest, none of them with beaches
Can anyone here recommend any good books on the topic of UBI?
> Taking care of my family involves me working hard, so why are you willing to make me work harder so that others can work less?

Nobody would make you do anything. You'd make exactly the same as other people. If taking care of your family for you means giving a certain standard of living, you'd certainly get a higher standard of living since you are working and getting more money than other people. Otherwise, if you're content with the bottom line you can just stop working and coast along.

> Taking more money from me to pay you to take care of your family, on the other hand, is morally wrong.

Can you stop thinking in terms of money for just one second? In the Middle Ages there were around 80-90% farmers in order to feed everyone. Now we need less than 5%. Sure, now there are new jobs, like making phones, travel, and millions of other things. But the other things nobody needs to be alive. Thus, why would we not take advantage from this huge technological advance by giving everyone enough money to eat, since making food is now so incredibly cheap? And if people stop working because of that, well, maybe they don't give enough shits about smartphones and they were there just to make a perverse economy to work. It's not about those things. It's about food and a roof - both things we can make in an incredibly cheap and automated way (we can 3d print houses, would you have ever believed it??).
There is definitely interest in this. It is always nice to dive into different computing architectures and see how stuff is done. And it's never wrong to write something more accessible than the Intel manuals ;)
(one can read those if really necessary anyhow)
The government already uses implied violence at gunpoint to redistribute money, socialist or otherwise. The question is, does that terrifying government power mean that money goes to the rich banker, or the struggling clerk?
Presumably they have to keep coming up with new ones because readers get acclimated to the old ones.

Submitters: please remember that the HN guidelines ask you to change the original title when it is linkbait. We changed this one to a representative phrase from the article.
I think articles like these beg the question. It introduces a claim ("many/most people think some languages are too weird") and tries to refute it without first showing that the claim is true.

Sure, I see lots of evidence of junior developers living in a happy bubble where they apply language X to everything, when they could expand their horizons a bit by looking into Y and Z.

But this also ignores important factors such as:

* Convenience — if you've highly proficient in X, there's a low barrier to entry for anything you want to accomplish.

* Private ecosystem — if all your code is in X, you have potentially tons of reusable modules as part of your own stack.

* Public ecosystem — lots of libraries and community support.

* Mature documentation

* Stability

* Ease of hiring

and so on.

Also, not least: The journey of every developer is to broaden one's horizons gradually. As a junior you'll likely slog through a few fad languages until you reach a point where every technology out there, no matter how advanced, will suddenly become approachable.

The Blub idea also ignores the fact people can accomplish great things with poor tools. Choosing a minimal tool does not necessarily say anything about you as a developer. Sticking to one tool for many years probably says a lot about your ability to develop your skills, of course.

In short, I think Blub is a red herring, and I think it's a condescending one, a product of survivorship bias — you're not superior because you succeeded using a certain set of tools. You're probably successful for other reasons (which may correlate with your ability to choose the right tools, or not).

Graham's observation that "[languages] dictate the way [developers] think about programs" is the more important lesson to draw from his essay, though it's not exactly a new idea.
I'm slowly learning rust. Ive worked with c and jni in android for sound apps but now Im ignoring my reactions over the weird parts of rust so i can use it to builda killer music application for raspberry pi
KAAREM
>$12,000/year per American adult who is not already on welfare or social security...

Is not what's being proposed by pretty much anyone.

$12,000/year per American adult who isn't already earning $X/year is how I understand it. A negative income tax, effectively.

Even if it's not administered that way (i.e., everyone gets a $1k check every month), then you raise taxes in such a way that every dollar earned means you earn more, but that by, say, $48k/year you're paying at least $12k/year in taxes.
> When did it become my responsibility to work harder so that they can do that?

That's the thing - it isn't and won't be. Basic Income is designed for, and in fact only works in, civilizations with enough excess productivity that they don't have to have their entire population working their assess off to maintain homeostasis and well-being. The USA is just about to get there. Some of the Nordic countries were there probably five or six years ago. There's a reason they're implementing it before us.

BI isn't "so that people can sit on their couches and do nothing all day while I support them". BI is so that people aren't required to have jobs to survive. Because when your civilization has sufficiently efficient per-person production, you end up with an issue where you're not just overprovisioned, but so overprovisioned that companies must start laying off large portions of the population to avoid wasting money hiring uselessly overproductive employees. At which point you end up with 30% or 60% unemployment and you have to choose between letting a third of your population starve or implementing something like BI.

That's the situation. BI isn't here to make it your responsibility to support everybody. BI is here because it's become so easy for people to support others that the economy, which up until now has assumed that there'll never be enough support to go around, has fallen apart. It's set up so that you can choose to support others instead of taking care of your family, and still have everything make sense.
I think it's a autonomy thing. People that care about their work will care about their work environment, and they're the best stewards for getting that kind of work environment in place. They've got the tightest feedback loops after all.

This seems to conflict with ease of management, which might be why this kind of autonomy is rarely granted. Cubicles are cheap and easy to manage, having 50 different environments in a 50 person office and resolving conflicts between them is not.

There's some approaches that partially address this problem, for example "Work from home", which whilst allowing some workplace customization has a number of drawbacks.

I guess the simplest way to go about it from a strictly physical (eg. excluding communication channels) work environment standpoint would be to give people a space and money budget, and treating them like responsible adults with it. "want to wall in and sound-proof your space? sure". "Need 2 different office chairs for your back problems? Put it on the list."

Set a suitable budget cap per person, divvy up available space, and optionally set up a position that handles ordering of things and tracking of funds spent.

Historically speaking, very senior employees get to do this with their own office to a degree. But the output and impact of good software engineers might warrant the same kind of autonomy.

It may be a considerable leap of faith from a management standpoint, but there's some absurdity in managers trusting engineers with business critical systems, but at the same time being concerned about their ability to pick a desk and chair to seat their butts upon.

Then there's the thing with open offices, but that's a cost of communication issue, signal-to-noise ratio kind of thing. Talking in an open office is broad-spectrum and cheap for some of the participants, but information conveyed is not necessarily valuable in the greater scheme of things, in addition to incurring attention costs for everyone else.

It's like radio without the FCC or everyone communicating over the broadcast address in a network.
The main technical difference is that you can not have scoped imports.
The main impact though, is that many will use a hammer on screws, meaning; people used to "other tools", can now do so (ES6: import, class, etc). While require teaches you to use the electrical screwdriver.
PSVita: Dumping your games or apps without PFS protection
For the time being I can't access original implementation, but quick and dirty version looks like this: https://gist.github.com/hadrianw/8e6f9c1007953b37f768
Apologies, I didn't see release mentioned when I read the article.
But we already have that permanent poor class, vanishingly few of whom escape it, and they're actually getting poorer as time goes on.

I see UBI as the best plan by far I've heard to address homelessness and poverty and education and hunger with a single solution. No it's not perfect, but for as little as working provides poor people now, what incentive do they have now that they'd lose later besides those below basic human dignity (like eating)?

To your point about politicians mucking with BI on the regular, I concur that is a real concern to proper execution.
Nice to hear that you say you have nothing up your sleeves. I believe you don't, but if you were an agent for a covert agency you would make the same claims, so they mean nothing.

As for opsec on keys... the only thing making key extraction remotely difficult by a state actor is probably some form of hsm - but recalling the xbox 1 crack, I don't know how well even those stand up in practice. For everything else, I assume you're just a sneak-and-peak warrant and some cameras/listening-devices away from sharing your passphrase.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's great that people are working on secure chat applications. I just think one needs to be very careful making claims that end up on the side of being secure against state actors.
People need to understand, that's the general lobbying dynamic. Lobbyists don't automatically get their way just from giving cash; they push for incremental change where public support for that change is already strong.
Asyncssh – Python Asyncio Client/Server Implementation of SSHv2 Protocol
Absolutely, I was attempting to illustrate the difference in perspective, and how subjective '10x' is. My comment above fails in this regard.
As opposed to a property system guaranteed by government (using violence at gunpoint to enforce distribution of resources according to particular rules). The libertarians leave out the part in brackets.
Yes, and I am super duper pumped.
They do, in fact, have quite a bit of leeway. Eventually, though, when they need significant funding, or headcount, they ask their managers. As the project grows, it continues escalating, and if it's a major strategic commitment, it goes all the way up to the CEO and Board of Directors.

It's worked really, really well for Google thus far; have you seen the long-term trend of their stock price? Nonetheless, if you'd like to change it, you're welcome to acquire a controlling share of the company, and then you can run it however you please.
> If you're concerned about energy use and willing to trust a third party to verify the transactions, then why not use VISA?

Well, that's my question.. They are already willing to trust the party that generated the code that they had legal access to their computer for this purpose. I think we would all be better off if they just required proof of monetary donation to some charity or something.

All that was accomplished here was shifting of trust on these individuals at some energy expense; it's insane.

It's nice theoretical exercise for sure, but I sincerely hope that anyone attempting to build yet another monetary system on waste of energy will seriously reconsider the idea.
> completely emotional

Nope, just emotional to varying degrees. If you think that people don't ever have emotional responses to things or are always able to separate those emotional responses from their interpretations of things, I am really curious what life experiences led you to that conclusion. It differs drastically from my interactions with people.

I actually suspect we're misinterpreting each other.
You are profitable on fix-cost projects only. :-)
Because we constantly keep redistributing it via income taxes. Because if they raise the rents they loose their UBI customers to someone who doesn't (of course that assumes there's no collaboration nor a monopoly). Already I see this in college housing. Some company increases their prices, a bunch of people move out to the place two blocks down with the old prices, and then they lowered them again to get those people back.
Great points. One thing I would add is to pay a lot of attention to your team's dynamics. One bad (or just not as engaged) team member could derail the whole team's morale. Friction should be dealt with immediately, even if it's really minor.
AI, Machine Learning Rising in the Enterprise
Looks I'm wrong again, it's been a while since I wrote it it also uses typeof gcc/llvm extension, there might be a way to fix that but since msvc lacks _Generic I didn't bother.

I was also hoping to support c++ but c++ doesn't do designated initializers.
It's not due to politics. It wouldn't matter of her want running for anything. It's a matter of him having so many negative traits. Generally, you choose someone with mostly positive traits for emulation.
The average cost for an ACA premium in 2015 was $374 per month, but since 85 percent of people signing up receive a subsidy the cost is actually much lower.

"Among consumers who are signed up for 2015 coverage to date in the 37 HealthCare.gov states, 8 in 10 could choose a plan with a premium of $100 or less after tax credits, based on available options."[1]

[1]http://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2015/02/09/almost-6-point-5-mi...
Quick summary: subsidizing positional goods makes them more expensive (because there's always someone willing to pay more for a higher place on the totem pole), and it looks like this effect has driven up the cost of higher education, which is partly a positional good. Beware of throwing more money at this.
Also, the money used as basic income is not lost but will (mostly) stay in the economic system and stimulate growth. In most developed countries, introducing a universal basic income would require us to raise the tax rate to about 70 %, which does not sound ridiculously high given that it already is at 50 % in many countries (e.g. Germany). Also, the net effect on income would probably be positive for most people at the low end of the income distribution. People with higher incomes would lose money though.

The most interesting question (to me at least) therefore is how this new tax progression would change the incentives for people at the high end of the income distribution. Theoretically it should lead people that earn a lot of money to value their free time more, which in turn would make them want to work less. Another positive effect would be the reduction of economic inequality through the higher redistribution of money from high to low incomes. In Europe there are some countries that are a good example for this. Sweden notably has a very steep tax progression for people with large incomes, such that some people reportedly even reach marginal tax rates > 100 % (e.g. Astrid Lindgren https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrid_Lindgren). As a result, Sweden has one of the smallest income inequalities among countries in the developed world (the Gini coefficient there is 25 % vs. 46 % for the USA). Higher taxation of large incomes reduces income inequality, which I think is (mostly) a good thing.

The question is therefore not if it's possible (it probably is), but if people actually want it and think it's fair.
> Photos - I went to Italy a few weeks ago with a group. One of the guys had a 16GB phone. He was emailing the photos to his wife each night and deleting them after because he didn't have enough space. That's annoying, and what do you do when you don't have a data connection and run out of space?

Google Photos!!!! Seriously the greatest photo app in existence!
The Timeshare Hard Sell Comes Roaring Back
Great to have this data. But wouldn't the extent of dryer-induced shrinkage be driven by the amount of time in the dryer, as much or more than temperature?

While most modern dryers offer a choice of temperatures, the big knob mostly controls a humidistat-based target. I personally equate the "very dry" setting with "shrink beyond usability".

I'd expect that removing clothes while still damp would be more important to avoiding shrinkage than reducing the heat, but I'm no T-shirt scientist. (T-shirtician? T-shirtologist?)
Please don't conduct religious flamewars on Hacker News.
UBI is often described as a negative income tax for a reason. You don't send those people the money, you give them a tax credit for the money.
Well, yummyfajitas did say, "close to $0", not free. And I think you are forgetting about libraries. They offer Internet access and they are far cheaper than colleges.

Edit: In 2011, the cost for all libraries in the US was $11.5 billion.[1] In the same year, $483 billion was spent in the US on college education.[2] That's a 42x difference. Granted, the uses and use-cases are different. But anyone who can go to college can, if they have the motivation, get the same knowledge for far cheaper.

Of course (excepting a few unusual disciplines like programming), credentials help one's career more than knowledge.

1. https://www.imls.gov/assets/1/AssetManager/FY2012%20PLS_Tabl...

2. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d12/tables/dt12_029.asp
I don't think it's a good idea to provide secure messaging services that boot from a web page, under any circumstances.

This stuff has to work. The adversary for secure messaging is world governments. If all you're worried about is criminals, Gchat will do a fine job of protecting you. For a vivid example of what I'm talking about, see the Telegram/Iran fiasco.

It's hard enough building secure messaging in a native application; there are lots of details that are not easy to get right (as Cure53 demonstrated to your team).

Bluntly: I feel that it's irresponsible to add to that portfolio of difficulties the added attack surface of content-controlled Javascript.

The reason people build services like this is that users will prefer them to (more secure) native app alternatives. It's easy to see why. The common response to this observation is: "but users won't install an app". They won't install an app because people keep luring the away with insecure web-page based secure messengers.
The proposal is to pay all citizens the same amount. No means testing, no qualification except perhaps an age limit.

Individuals are not the only tax payers, and the wealthy do pay far more than $12,000 per year already.