skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Don't get me wrong I respect Rust core team as theorists and think rust is an important research project.

But in C++ if you have a const member function F() then F() can only change member variables that use the "mutable" key word.

If you default to all methods are const you have much much safer C++. As safe as rust? not probably but combined with liftimes proposal and static analysis rules we have a language good engineers can sufficiently work with.

struct Foo
{
mutable auto a = 4;
auto increment() const -> void
{
this->++a;
}
};

If we train engineers to use const member functions, then the programmer is forced to think about state and mutation.

As C++98 PTSD begins to fade and C++17 becomes the cultural mental image of the language, the argument for switching to rust will become less and less compelling.

Eventually, the only "advantage" will be ML influenced syntax.

The reason is there are only three languages that can easily call into C++ code. Objective-C (swift by proxy), D, and of course C++.

Why rust didn't prioritize compatibility with C++ like C++ did with C boggles my mind. Why do you think C++ became so popular? Near perfect C compatibility (until recently) is literally the only reason. Instead of focusing on pragmatisim Rust focused on language purity.

At what cost?
Talk to your customers.

Are they switching?

If so, why?

Talking to your customers matters more than competition.

Good luck.
There have been github staff that have shared what they see as more of the story.

https://medium.com/@geeekcore1/facts-conveniently-withheld-d...

If someone pulled those kind of stunts on you, I think your sympathy over their career would be limited also.
> I can't. Totally cannot. 100% can't deal with your argument.

I find it telling that you think it is my argument. What I wrote is neither mine nor an argument. It is a description of a theory.

> Discrimination is discrimination is discrimination.

Not all discriminations are equal.

To argue that all discrimination is discrimination is to give equivalence to police murdering for traffic violations and being denied the pole position on a job application. Both are wrong, but there are quantitative differences – they can be measured.

> How do we measure wrongs? How do we "undo future wrongs"?

We can measure the effect of discrimination by the number of people affected, and the impact a discrimination has on an individual. It's not an unknown problem; statisticians measure it on jobs, income, applications, promotions, employment types. The data exists or can be gathered, and it can ascribed monetary value ("damages" in law). No formula will be ideal in all cases, but that is not an excusable barrier.

Societies with affirmative action have in essence determined, whether founded or not, that the aggregate of prejudice against classes of victims outweighs the aggregate prejudice of attempting to correct it.

If you want to discredit the theory you must first understand that it is a widely published and peer reviewed theory of many facets of society and not just an argument from some guy on the internet. The theory is founded in the philosophy of law, and touches on many other aspects ranging from the relationship between culture and economics through criminology.
How about a Git repository management application designed specifically for Sandstorm (https://sandstorm.io/)? Maybe call it Gitgrains.
The article points out that in 95% of cases, there's another Walmart within 10 miles of the one they're closing. It seems like the Post is choosing the most extreme case it could find.

The article also points out that the town had already shut down before Walmart had come in. But it still seems to take the angry-corporate-greed angle. This wasn't a place where Walmart came in and displaced businesses. This is where Walmart came in where there had been nothing.

People always like to play the "there's no way this isn't making money" card like companies like to close things that make money.

The article also doesn't really talk about how most of the closures are really Walmart Express stores. If BestBuy decided to end BestBuy Mobile, it's more a decision about the format than locations.

Walmart is closing 12 Supercenters and 6 regular Walmarts. The other closings are other formats. For example, Walmart is killing off their Express stores which number 102. The second most closings is for the Neighborhood Markets which (from the map) are in urban areas where people will have other options.

From a PR perspective, Walmart should have announced that it was killing off the Express concept independent of any other closings. Close those now. Then, over the next 18 months, close a single Walmart each month. Saying that you don't like the Express concept is just a business direction. Closing a Walmart each month isn't national news. And just trudge along with some of the rest. By closing 154 all at once, it becomes news and it becomes "Walmarts" that are being closed when the vast majority are Walmart Express stores that were an experiment started in 2011. The majority of the locations being closed are an experiment where Walmart tried to create a CVS-sized store.

It's going to be crappy for a few places. But to be fair to Walmart, the residents of Kimball say that all the other shops had left before Walmart even came in. Big numbers make for news and Walmart should have been smarter and shuttered the Express stores independent of any real Walmart closings. If they had shuttered 102 Express locations and then just closed a Walmart here and there, people wouldn't make news out of it because it wouldn't be big numbers. There would be news about how Walmart can't do smaller-format stores, but that's a very different story from the Post article. The real story here is that Walmart didn't manage the closings in a PR-friendly way.
The sporting goods section is always right between the automotive and toy sections in a Walmart.
> Do you want C++ compiler to also prevent data races? Then use const functions by default, seriously.

Tell me how to use const functions to enforce that I take a lock before accessing data guarded by a mutex. Or how to mutate data local to the current thread only, while forbidding mutation of shared data.

> Imagine if all the effort of 8 years of Rust team went into a modern C++ safety library.

I imagine our 8 years would have been wasted chasing the impossible.
That society is patriarchal is an empirical fact not a conspiracy. But fill your boots.
Why wouldn't it be? There are companies all around you. From the gas station down the street to the finance businesses downtown. They all have problems, and they all have money. Some of those problems can be solved with software. All you have to do is keep talking to them until you find one.

$100 a month is practically nothing on an American company's budget. To many of them, $1K a month and $100 a month mostly looks the same. They'll happily pay either amount, so long as the solution provided actually does what you say it does and it isn't a hassle.
>Around one in 20 of women and men equally, have been forced into sexual intercourse against their will, in their lifetime. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_by_gender.

That stat's not in that article.
America's infrastructure is being funded just fine. The numbers are coming down and have been doing so since their peaks in the 90s, an example are bridges are now half their number from before. However the Federal government cannot do all the required work on bridges or even roads as it does not have dominion over them.

What that means is that in many areas, same as with water distribution, this is wholly managed and supported by local authorities. This can be city, county, or even state level.
Admire his persistence and dedication to creative commons. That said, I can see why professional news photographers feel threatened and perhaps a little insulted too... Most shots in the article and on his Flickr feed look merely 'good enough' or 'usable' (as opposed to 'great').
So fund the system with taxes. Issue bonds for necessary infrastructure upgrades. If raising money is politically impossible in any form, shut the system down. If the responsible people are just throwing their hands up and letting the systems collapse and poison people along the way, that's at best incompetence.
> We know how that turned out.

As a massive improvement in the expected quality of life for 80% of the population, as opposed to when the government was jointly run by Batista and American organized crime?
Mathematical economist/game theorist here (applying daily in the role of CEO of family firm founded three generations ago).

Firstly... and I do not mean this to sound like hurt pride, but... a discipline would need to be quite trivial to be ‘understood’ by cursorily surveying a few online texts. There's a corpus of several centuries of findings, derivations, and unresolved controversies precisely _because_ it is nontrivial. (Side note: the existence of controversies that divide different schools of thought does not mean that everything is in question and that absolutely anything goes because, hey, we can always argue with words by distancing ourselves from observable reality — that makes for religion not science, albeit even the dismal kind.)

Second: the general idea is that there exists a dynamic, complex system constituted of agents (people, sometimes aggregated into firms and/or nations, being almost always simultaneously consumers of something in need of everything except that which they are suppliers of, be it labour, materials, knowledge, time in the form of lending money, whatever) each doing their best to maximise the enjoyment (utility) of what they have by interacting in a series of ‘markets’, which for the sake of analysis we generally are forced to assume are in ‘equilibrium’ (i.e. We're at the “end of history“ where no external bumps or surprises are leaking into the market and nudging it in any direction) but in truth we know to be in perpetual disequilibrium as information percolates in, surprises happen, and generally guesstimates of everybody involved are shown to right at best on average. An equilibrium price comes to exist where supply and demand cross and we spend many a happy hour calculating that and then trying to figure out how a ‘shocked’ system returns to equilibrium if we jolt it.

Thirdly: money is (surprisingly enough, for the public which seems to conflate economics and accounting) not necessarily the domain of economics. As a whole the discipline deals with incentives (most usefully and generically regarded as differences in subjective utility) and responses thereto (utility maximising strategies). Money is at best something that serves as a denominator to give everything a common unit and, at worst, an irksome distortion. This is one of those “school of thought” controversies I mentioned above: there are monetarists within the domain of economics and there is the separate domain of finance, somewhere between accounting and economics, and to which ‘risk’ (uncertain future outcomes) is an essential ingredient — and governmental fiscal policy (taxation and public spending)... that's yet another thing.

For the sake of reading I suggest (no offence intended) Managerial Economics For Dummies, The Origin Of Wealth (Eric Beinhocker), and The Social Atom (Mark Buchanan).

P.S. On mobile so I've had to edit this a few times... sorry if you caught me in flux but it's great to have a chance to mention stuff that amuses me once in a while.
So nobody has any idea what happened, other than one of the offocers mistakenly called out that the "suspect" had a gun, and the other fired.

I can understand why the other officer fired; she believed that the guy who was, at the time, charging at her had a gun and presumably was gonna use it. When confronted with deadly force, deadly force is authorized, so that officers don't get killed trying to non-lethally take down a murderous criminal.

The problem is that this guy was neither murderous nor a criminal. The officer who called out that the perp had a gun was wrong, and a man is dead because of it.

Of course, the cop who held the gun will be slammed for this. But the cop who called the invisible gun will be left alone.
> But in C++ if you have a const member function F() then F() can only change member variables that use the "mutable" key word.

This is not nearly enough. See the examples I gave in my other post.

Besides, all "const" means is "I won't mutate 'this'". It doesn't mean someone else who has a non-const reference to your object won't mutate your object. That makes it largely useless for reasoning at a local level.

> If we train engineers to use const member functions, then the programmer is forced to think about state and mutation.

The programmer may think about it, but the compiler doesn't enforce it at all.

> As C++98 PTSD begins to fade and C++17 becomes the cultural mental image of the language, the argument for switching to rust will become less and less compelling.

Only if you don't understand how Rust works.

> Why rust didn't prioritize compatibility with C++ like C++ did with C boggles my mind.

Because C++ compatibility is impossible without being a derivative of C++, and C++ is hopeless in the safety department. I believe it is impossible to make C++ memory safe without making it not C++ anymore.

> Instead of focusing on pragmatisim Rust focused on language purity.

No, Rust focused on what is possible.
(When I saw the title, I was wondering if this does something beyond the basic rebase, like trying to brute force a commit such that all following commits are preserved (hash doesn't change), but that's essentially impossible.)

I'm tempted to make the observation that there's nothing here you can't already do with a git rebase -i and:

GIT_COMMITTER_NAME=a GIT_COMMITTER_EMAIL=a@a.com GIT_COMMITTER_DATE=2006-01-02T15:04:05Z git commit --author='a <a@a.com>' --date 2006-01-02T15:04:05Z

But I realize this ability will be novel/surprising to some people, and this is meant to be a joke.

I don't do this not because I can't, but because I have no incentive to lie about who wrote/committed certain code.
Here's a brief guide for setting up SSH with YubiKey as a smartcard which complements this article nicely - https://github.com/drduh/YubiKey-Guide
Company motivation statement
This view is naive. There is an exceedingly small number of people that do not think the government should get out of the water business and even then, these are the people most critical of these kinds of institutional failures.
Where does it say they can't interview white candidates for jobs?
When to Sell Your Company
I dunno, it's very easy for me to express things differently in C++ and get a different runtime. It's easy enough for a bunch of C++ programmers writing needlessly slow code whom I've known. It must be equally easy for the author. The reason he doesn't ought to be vast experience with C++, so that he doesn't try obviously dumb things (as in things that malloc a ton of stuff needlessly, etc.), whereas his Rust experience is necessarily smaller. I think you need quite a bit of experience to declare that, well, experience just doesn't help because the performance model of this thing is weird!
> The western roman empire quite likely degraded in part due to its leadership being brain damaged by lead

FWIW, modern historians don't believe that. See https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/23o92d/on_co... for a rundown of the modern scholarship on the question, including a breakdown of Nriagu's arguments.
You mean exactly the way it is today?
Buffett? Look up the Superinvestors of Graham and Doddsville; addresses your 'just statistics' issue. On the general investment management industry, in aggregate they are the market so why would they outperform it? There are funds that outperform; most people can't buy in though.
But it's largely a pointless measurement, unless your goal is the extermination of a population. Soviet losses on the Eastern Front were much higher than German losses, which didn't prevent the German from losing on that front.

Or take WWI, where the collapse of the government was the death knell for the German military effort.
You are right that you should be, but in practice, a lot of advice at that level is still standardized. Where I agree with you is the wrapper fee on a 50m account ($250-500k/year) is not enough to build a personal advisory staff as diverse and specialized as a good firm should be providing you for that sum, and your personal staff wouldn't have enough to do all year anyway.
I would have preferred some sort of comment by the poster as to how they relate, for background. Or perhaps, how one is better than the other. But just throwing a link out there because it's semi-relevant to the topic being discussed, even with full disclosure, seems like a very spammy thing to do.
Blaming the tax-system is an intellectually-lazy solution. "Here kids, we can't afford water without lead so take this." Super competent.
It turned out that they needed a sponsor, and that turned out to be the Soviet Union?
I think a lot of people agree with you but there is a reason:

http://www.xanthir.com/blog/b4KT0
I was drawn to computer programming before I turned it into a career, as opposed to those who learn it because they want to make good money or think that's how they'll get their startup launched. I assume that was the distinction the author was making.
Pretty sad that in a world with living standards and silent updates, things that improve the state of the Web so vastly for developers still take so long to be widely available. (W3C doesn't even have a CR yet.) Less and Sass are nice, but the resulting CSS is full of repetition, thus hurting performance.

Am I right in assuming that IE won't receive any more feature updates? Many enterprises will stay on Win 7 for a while and enterprises traditionally embrace IE, so thank you, "new" Microsoft, for pushing things forward.
What an incredibly well written article, and quite thought provoking.
Well remove the protection government employees have, sovereign immunity protects both negligent government employees as well the entire bureaucratic structure. In other words, if a privately managed water system is found deficient or worse individuals are found knowingly negligent they can be held liable criminally. When it comes to the public sector this is not true, you cannot sue the people or government organization involved. You can only make a claim against their insurance if that is allowed and they can decide if it is.

If we are going to continue to have important services be run by government we must life the sovereign immunity they enjoy. This will raise the accountability so they act in our best interest.
Something you have plus 2 things you know does not turn 2FA into 3FA. It's still 2FA - it's just somethings you know instead of something you know.

3 FA is :

* Something you have (normally one OR MORE user IDs)

* Something you know (normally the associated password or passwords for the user ID(s))

* Something you are (normally biometric)

[edit: technically, it's multi-factor when using multiple user/passwords - here's a useful link https://pciguru.wordpress.com/2010/05/01/one-two-and-three-f...]
Games from people like World of Goo are exciting. I wasn't sure how I'd even imagine a game that could teach skills with good mapping to programming. They're doing a good job. Prior to that, the best results we were getting were projects like the brilliant MIT Scratch that turned it into collaborative, creative, lego building (below). Should still invest in stuff like that, too, which is more direct but fun.

https://scratch.mit.edu/

On other hand, that programming is a fundamental skill is an assertion that's being repeated by many without evidence. It's a useful skill that will become more useful as we go along. Yet, something like 80-90% of America, including top 1%, know nothing about programming despite their job success or quality of life. There's no direct tie in. Meanwhile, they use reading/writing and mathematics on a regular basis. So, I think people should stop making this claim as most people will mentally tune out upon seeing something like that.

This brings to a bigger point where software isn't engineered despite prior work showing how to do it. That started with Margaret Hamilton and Dijkstra in the 1960's where both of them used modularity, layering, and interface checks to build flawless systems. By the 1980's, Hansen had safe concurrency (Concurrent Pascal), Mill's Cleanroom let teams hit almost no defects first try, LISP machines let you live-edit, incrementally-develop running systems w/ no compile phase, Schell had a NSA-resistant kernel (GEMSOS) that ran other things as processes/containers on virtual CPU's (sound familiar?), and Wirth's simplicity + safe language approaches let ETH run on their students' OS's. Each of these approaches led, with small teams, to systems that reached high levels of security, reliability, extensibility, and (for Lisp machines) productivity.

Yet, the techniques that built them are largely not used by mainstream. The negative results are predictable. So, we have two problems: (a) getting nonprogrammers into programming so they can solve problems with some approach and toolset; (b) getting programmers into engineering so they can build robust, maintainable systems using lessons learned from the past. Like other engineering fields do. So far, we're doing better at (a). Some good news at least.
The title was mistyped. It's Blitab.
The one that immediately comes to mind is Renaissance Technologies, which averaged a nearly 72% annual return between 1994 and 2014.[1] This is a 20 year term, during which the S&P 500's average annual return was 7%.

Seth Klarman's Baupost Group averaged a 20% return between its founding in 1982 and 2015.[2] This is a 33 year term, during which the S&P 500's average annual return was 8.8%.

Average annual return is not the whole picture (i.e. it is theoretically possible to have a phenomenal single year and mediocre performance for 9 years and thus beat the S&P 500 over a 10 year period) and there are other examples, but these should suffice.

[1]: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-16/how-an-exc...

[2]: http://www.octafinance.com/hedge-funds/seth-klarman-baupost-...
If 'good enough' and 'usable' @ a price of 'free' is what's becoming ubiquitous, hasn't Mr. Skidmore just locked in on a new-ish market equilibrium?
Global Transparency – FATCA, CRS, European FATCA
> This is an insidious pitfall that may earn Rust the "slow" label, akin to what happened to Common Lisp.

This doesn't match my experience at all with Rust, for what it's worth. Not having copy constructors makes up for any difference in that regard: in C++ it's way too easy to accidentally deep copy a vector and the entire object graph underneath it--all it takes is "auto a = b" as opposed to "auto& a = b"--with very bad performance consequences. Rust, on the other hand, doesn't let you deep copy unless you explicitly ask it to.
Interesting. I love requests. SQL isn't my area of expertise so im genuinely surprised in 2016 we're still building libraries like this for Python; are existing libraries really that bad?
Looks awesome. A couple questions:

If you do a query that returns 100 records and use rows.next(), does it just get them from the cursor without pulling down the rest from the database? Do you need to dispose of the cursor or is it automatically cleaned up?

The export formats are just a an attribute, not a method call. It would need to use @property IIRC. Does this go against the guideline in Python that "explicit is better than implicit"?
A fingerprint, like any piece of data, is handled at the lowest levels as a number. A number with some constraints, but a number.

By feeding numbers into the scanner instead of fingers, you can accomplish the same effect as feeding random strings into a password box. Further, it's also possible to take fingerprints through social engineering, or by getting at the database of a company that uses fingerprints as security. Five bucks says someone's already storing a bunch of fingerprint data as plaintext.