skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I always wonder why no binary clock works with fractions. So the first minute pixel would show you in which half of the hour you are, the second in which of the both quarters of the hour. The rest 4 would show you which of the fifteen minutes in the quarter it is. That way you can see pretty fast around what time it is.
Numpy existing (more than) a decade ago helped with getting mind share.
So refusing to look up function definitions in python is the equivalent of using pure-functional languages and learning new paradigms? Please.
Agreed. Ad-blocking is a whole level above previous methods of skipping ads -- fast-forwarding during commercials, say -- because once you're blocking, it requires no effort to keep blocking and it does require effort to stop. People who block are advertising eyeballs that are pretty much gone permanently. Overcoming that inertia is a challenge I frankly wouldn't want to have on my plate.
Which is why i said form the point of view of the drivers :)

I.e. the claims that because uber isn't doing things by the book it's somehow less safe than using regulated taxi's.

This is obviously false since the logging of the drivers and the passengers probably make it one of the most transparent safety protocols out there.

Most studies show that some of the biggest detergents against crimes is the risk of being detected.

So in other words. Uber is as safe for the passgener, if not safer, than any other taxi company out there.
The very latest UK product recall and safety notices more than 50 in February
That was a horrible comment :)

The author is clearly saying "We have to put in our best efforts and then give ourselves permission to let whatever happens to happen". And then that after we've put in our best effort, we must accept that some things are out of our control and impossible to accurately predict: things like timing!

She doesn't dismiss effort or time: she just says that you can't rely on them to produce predictable results at specific times. You will work hard, and you will succeed most of the times you work hard at something. But probably not when you predicted you will succeed. And maybe not always at the thing that you initially wanted to succeed at. And accepting lack of control doesn't mean loosing motivation. Even her points about motivation I read them as saying something along the lines of: "don't try to pump up yourself with artificial willpower and motivation, just persist at working in your natural rhythm, and things will work out fine, even if you can't control when they will work out fine".

It's very biased towards the "accept the lack of control" part, indeed. But the bias is necessary to counterbalance the pov of people like you that keep throwing up the "work harder, work more" (or "just put more time, more effort") mantra to everyone they meet! This kind of advice is useful for some people. But horrible for others! Some need more to find a "a natural rhythm" and "let things happen", and unfortunately you rarely see this advice. Others may indeed call what I would say it's "my natural rhythm", something like "extremely hard work and perseverence", and maybe these kinds of people need your kind of advice.

...and there are also those that are simply "born to be lazy", and throwing the "work harder, work more" thing at them will only viciously turn them against whoever yelled that at them, transforming them from harmless slackers into people that will instead steal or kill or be corrupt and spread corruption, or otherwise sabotage the system just for the "fun" (read "revenge for being bothered") of making others suffer simply because some self-righteuous know-it-alls couldn't simply "let them be".
I wrote the article, and I'm confused because I agree with your objections but I don't recall that I wrote any of the things you're objecting to. IIRC I even said math has no docs or compiler that you can test your programs with.

> With a program, you can always write test cases and run them to ensure they all pass.

> There is no compiler to tell you that it’s nonsensical to construct the set of all sets

> In mathematics there is no unified documentation, just a collective understanding, scattered references, and spoken folk lore. You’re lucky if a textbook has a table of notation in the appendix.
> I jokingly enforce a no-googling-at-the-lunch-table rule on my millennial coworkers

Trying to control what other people can do... great joke!

> fatuous speculation that makes for decent conversation

Misinformed conversation... sounds awesome.
Good luck getting monthly security patches on this.
Depends on terminal-notifier[1] for notifications on OS X.

Not sure about "notify-send" for Linux.

[1]: https://github.com/julienXX/terminal-notifier
* Which problems have you had?

* What do you recommend to improve us?

Thanks.
What does full stack language mean in this context?
The thing English has going for it (other than it is my native language) is it very easy to speak badly. With a minimal grasp of it you can get across what you are trying to say.

I do agree about the insanity of English's spelling. Spelling reform is one of my lost causes that I think could be fixed by technology [1].

1. http://www.cutspel.com
6. modify the shape of the eyeball so that the image is formed on the retina. You can already do this if you squeeze your eyes...
That's a lot of snark for someone making such a broad generalization. Look at a program called Houdini and it's shading language. It is domain specific but includes branching and loops. The interface uses openGL and is extremely fluid. If that wasn't enough, it is live, so while you are working you can see your results in real time. You can use it to manipulate geometry, images, sound / animation, as well as the original purpose of writing shaders. That visual programming IDE has been enormously successful.
Oh, thank you for spotting the error. Of course, there should be `fileAge.catch` there. I'll fix that in a moment. I will prepare a visual example of exceptions and put it in the website later today. For now think of it like that: running an operation results in a data and this data is transmitted over connection between nodes. If you read data from file it can be "broken" in different ways, for example it did not exist on disk. If you convert it to integer - it still could be broken or become broken (for example we were not able to convert this text to integer). So far you've got such graph of nodes: open --> to Int --> ... and the resulting edge could be broken if one of the exceptions occured. If you put there `catch` node you can either double click it and define its subgraph, that has input of the `e` variable or simply connect other input that would be used if the error occurs. Thats all - in contrast to imperative languages exceptions in Luna do NOT propagate over blocks of code - they propagate over the data dependencies. In fact the exceptions in Luna are just algebraic data structures that could have 2 values - Just ok or Error e - something like Either in Haskell (side note for Haskellers). Does it make sense to you? :)
Practical tips for people contemplating marriage
It doesn't say that much about the loop optimizations--

The cases where I've seen the largest gains come from loops where analysis shows that the loop runs, say, exactly 8 times or forever (due to overflow). Knowing it runs 8 times exactly lets the loop get unrolled, which then lets vectorization work... and then some inner loop runs more than 3x faster.
Your comment about Signal threw off some thoughts :)

I've said before that I think Signal's UX is not great esp compared with other messaging apps.

The following just came to me so I'm going to digress for a bit into stream of consciousness.

* Signal allows for calling now so why not require a first call to verify the other party. I would think people are pretty good at recognizing voices.

* Or send an image and video call to verify?

Still looking for a Signal+Ricochet+Burner type app...
Done!

You're welcome :)
dimity - nice hack :)

I'd argue that the most critical piece of work is power management for the watch. Did this magically port over or does the system just run at full whack?

Cheers,

Nick
Fantastic project. I just upvoted. Interestingly, too, the OP may be interested in the Vanhawks Valour smart bike: https://vanhawks.com/ which integrates smartphone Bluetooth, sonar detection, and the bike itself.
Like you, I see this like a natural evolution. Instead of adding stuff to CSS to become it more like a true programming language, we adapt a programming language to do the job of CSS.
The only problem that i see to this particular situation, is that I don't see a way to generate static CSS files like does Less/Sass . This like calling less.js on production...
I see this sentiment echoed every now and then and it completely baffles me. How on earth do you see VR ever working as an evolution of videoconferencing, no less a substitute for in-person meeting? HMDs obscure the most important part of face-to-face interaction, the myriad nonverbal cues and visceral connection we get from the eyes.

Talking to a person wearing a brick over their face in VR with perfect presence is still talking to a person wearing a brick over their face.
Plot twist: we reject it and like a spurned lover it lashes out at humanity.
I don't think the libraries are the only reason python has a strong following -- after all, perl also has a huge collection of libraries. I realize there's a healthy dollop of subjectivity in all this, but here are what I think the reasons for Pythons success.

1. Python uses words where many other languages use symbols. In addition, the words Python uses are simple and clear. Instead of '!', '&&' and '||', python has 'not', 'and' and 'or'. Often constructs that look like function calls in other languages look more similar to english in python. For example: if 'Python' in names: print("Found it!") .

2. Python uses indentation to control scoping. The merits of whitespace sensitivity are of course open for debate, however, I think it pushes the code closer to what pseudocode looks like, and this is probably a good thing.

3. Python has a simple and coherent object model. Unlike Lua or Javascript, python has a real object system (i.e. not prototype-based) with inheritance. Although object oriented programming doesn't get a lot of love on HN, it does have several benefits, compared to, for example, functional programming. One advantage is that it arguably well-understood and knowledge about OO has already been widely disseminated. Another advantage of OO is that the transition of using structs to hold mere data (a la C or Pascal) to OO is a simple matter of adding function to the struct. With OO, you can start with code that is more procedural, and work your way towards a design that is more OO. This is a path that makes sense in the context of scientific programming, since one often starts with a short programming that, say, implements an algorithm in a single function. (Then you build on it in an OO way by allowing loading input data, etc.)

5. Numerous well-defined, easily understood, and easily accessible customization points. For example, in Python, allowing the user to write "x + y" is as simple as implementing the "__add__" magic function for the class in question. Ability to overload the mathematical operators is critical for a language used in a scientific context, and this for example essentially eliminates Javascript. It also eliminates lisp in all its variations due to its lack of infix syntax (short of writing custom reader macros). The story is similar with decorators.

6. Python is easy to extend and embed. For some reason, everyone seems to rave on about how great Lua's C API is. Frankly, having written C++ extensions for both Lua, Python, and Java, the one I found easiest was Python's (especially -- but not necessarily -- using boost.python), followed by Java (especially using JNA), and Lua I found quite painful due to the explicit manipulation of the VM's stack.

7. Others have mentioned it, but the libraries are obviously a huge part of Python's success. As others have talked about it, I won't say anything more about it here.
> "Live programming" means that the code is being executed as you type it.

Not only.

The article references related work, but somehow it focuses on a single level of liveness[0], which is instantaneous feedback. It is great when you recompile your game update function while running it, but as far as day-to-day coding is concerned, I find it sufficient, and in fact less distracting, to have feedback only when I want it.

[0] https://liveprogramming.github.io/liveblog/2013/01/a-history...
Thx. great idea.
>By that logic, you shouldn't be online at all...

That's a strange leap of logic.

>Wikipedia

Asks for donations, it doesn't show ads.

There are many other websites that are internally funded in other ways that exclude direct ads.
Did this guy have a history of shootings, or was this his first time?
So, does that mean we should use unsigned integers whenever possible, such that we have defined overflows and still benefit from optimizations?
My biggest gripe with Python on Windows is all the libraries that sport a GCC toolchain for *nix environments, so completely fail to work. Yes, that is the library contributors fault, but I hate that Python even allows that.

Had to chuckle at the python on HN comment; Python tends to get universal praise around these parts (supposedly some investors won't even waste their time with you unless you're a Python shop).
You seem fun!

There's a deeply sarcastic culture of fake rules at my company, in which groove this fake rule fits precisely. Lunch time is generally understood as a time of bullshitting, conviviality and foosball. Every time we have to wait 30 seconds to find out, e.g., how many apple seeds you can eat without killing yourself, we are all richer for it.
This is brilliant. I work in finance (trading) - and have been trying to learn Clojure and Rust on my own over the last year (no CS background).
For people like me - this is phenomenal - if it works.
The ability to think logically doesn't translate directly into the ability to program, or vice versa and a person must spend a considerable amount of time learning the tools of programming. This tool could fill that gap for non-CS engineers.
Couple of questions (as you mentioned functional language)
a) In the opinion of the makers - what is this language NOT good for?
b) How good are the mathematical libraries going to be? As a benchmark I'd take Mathematica (not for speed - but width and depth of mathematical functions). If this question is redundant due to the ability to call Haskell - feel free to say so.
c) How far does the automatic parallelism go? Is it truly distributed over any scale?
Thanks again
If you look at both quadrupeds and bipeds, you'll see around the time they evolved an interrim period in which creatures existed that were not really quadrupeds or bipeds.

Evolutionary success creates only the illusion of lines, none really exist.
sounds too good to be true.
Companies like Yelp will only take notice when they aren't able to hire in the Bay Area for entry level roles. They can already see that it's heading that way, that's why they're moving support to AZ. It's cheaper to move their entire support operation to a different state than it is to provide a Bay Area wage.
Did you switch that up? Learn You a Haskell is excellent for beginners. The intermediate space is the gap.
How to Break MD5 and Other Hash Functions (2005) [pdf]
All of the points subsequent to your first one conflict with that conjecture, that we'll see a huge swing back toward private cloud & on-premise DCs.

Speaking from where I saw the industry [when I was a part of it] and now from what kinds of CIO/CTO conversations I see the GCP AMs/SEs having, I don't think we're remotely close to a swing back. Enterprise Capex budgets move VERY slowly most of the time, and it will take a multiple years to alter current momentum, which has finally reached the point where it's almost a foregone conclusion for many industries that on-prem DCs no longer make sense.

This opinion is driven almost as much by the increasingly compelling portfolio of enterprisy SaaS products like Netsuite and a plethora of workforce management, CRMs, analytics/visualization, sooooo much more of what has historically been internally developed business productivity apps.
Are you assuming that the majority of your users don't consider your content to be worth $1/month?
I have used a UFBGA. It was awful, taking three revisions of paste mask to get the thing soldered properly.
Apollo CPU Core, a fast 68000 reimplementation
I find Walmart csr work is like Valve. If you actually find a human to talk to, they're great. Good luck.
Title is misleading. To quote the article "There are 8.7 million eukaryotic species on our planet — give or take 1.3 million." 8.7M is way too low for a total species count that includes bacteria much less archaea.
Would be interesting to know what you found to be the very negative 10%, maybe we can help.
I checked out that course a little; it looked very basic, at least the part I checked. Then left it.

Saw the course via an ad, FWIW.
Hi, I'm a coauthor of the book mentioned in the State of the Union post.

The beginner parts were _a_ gap, but they weren't the only gap. In fact, none of the existing books really went very far beyond Monad, with only RWH covering monad transformers.

So, part of the appeal of the book isn't just that we cover beginner topics better, we cover _everything_ from beginner to intermediate/advanced that you're likely to apply in order to, say, make a web application. And in fact, we use a micro web framework in Haskell to demonstrate stuff in the later chapters.

It may not seem like it, because chapters like "data structures" actually cover - profiling time, profiling memory, containers, benchmarking, constant applicative forms, avoiding memory leaks, etc.

We'll be updating the site to explain what each chapter covers in more detail soon.

I've spent a couple years teaching Haskell and haven't found LYAH to set anyone up for success in Haskell. They usually hit a brick wall because they don't have either the foundation or intermediate idioms to really get anywhere. So there's usually a 45-days-in-the-desert period after LYAH where they have to muck through tens or hundreds of blog posts to plug all the gaps.

I talk about this here: http://bitemyapp.com/posts/2014-12-31-functional-education.h...

Suffice to say, I would've happily written a much smaller, shorter book - but this was needed.
In languages with GCs or managed in some other way, knowing the upper bound of loop iterations is also important because it allows you to remove the check-if-we-need-to-stop-the-world operation from the loop.

This applies even if the loop isn't unrolled. For example if I see a loop that definitely doesn't iterate more than 2^32 times (because it doesn't overflow) and I can see it only has a few simple instructions in it, then I may decide to omit the check from the loop because I know it can't take that long.
I expect the Oculous touch controllers to cost $199, this would make the Rift more expensive than the Vive in most parts of the world (you have to pay shipping twice).
Exactly. Their failed attempts to modernize have chased off their old customers, whereas their otherwise glacial pace hasnt attracted any new ones.
The opposite of "public" is "unreleased"—it's about whether something is known to people without clearance. Whether information comes out by being officially released or by being leaked, it still ends up "public."

The opposite of "secret", meanwhile, is "unrestricted"—it's about whether people charged to act in the country's interests (public servants, politicians, members of the military, and corporate employees who have signed contracts granting them clearances) are required to avoid mentioning it in any document or speech that would be public-accessible.

A well-known example is the content of the Edward Snowden leaks. They're also "public secrets": things civilians are allowed to talk about, but which people with clearance—having more restricted rights than regular people—are prevented from talking about to civilians.

Do note that there are good reasons for this distinction, although it can seem absurd. Things are restricted or classified in large chunks. Because of this, a part of a secret can be public (e.g. the name and purpose of a secret project), without the entire secret becoming public.

If public awareness meant declassification, you'd see a lot more still-secret information leaking out, as various people would think—since there's no "here's exactly what was leaked and what wasn't" memos that go around—that some part of the secret was leaked which wasn't, and is therefore fine to talk about.

The simplest way to avoid leaking anything else is to just go on pretending that even the first part of the secret hasn't been leaked and preventing everyone from talking about even that—so that the rest of the secret can't be socially engineered out of them.
I was wondering the same. Email bodies are to blog posts as subjects are to tweets?
One of the major reasons english has succeeded is because it adapts (ie it doesnt have fixed rules). This means it is inclusive and future-proof. Imagine if you couldnt name your website with a short term because it looks like it is spelled incorrectly.
Agreed on Dan Carlin and if i may add TheGreatWar youtube channel. https://www.youtube.com/user/TheGreatWar They have videos from the british pathé and do week to week 100 years ago to today recaps.

There is a lot of stuff and it won't end for a few years. Also interesting is they cover things like the infantry uniforms, the guns in use at the time etc.. Highly recommended.
I feel like for the sake of standardization we should start with a more easily constructed shape like an equilateral or reuleaux triangle. Otherwise I like the cut of his jib.
High Performance Computing with HPX