skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I've been messing about with Julia for a couple of years, I did a few tech talks about it at work and wrote a few side projects in it.

At work most people agreed with the technical insights - it's just a super language, but everyone thought that it was impossible to use it in any real project and very quickly discarded it even as a hobby tool. The clue is / was in the versioning - 0.3; 0.4 now 0.5. Things are broken and major things will change.

I think that this is really good, and important. Getting Julia right may really matter in the future. Code that costs less to write, runs faster and is easier to maintain is an underpinning capability for our economy and for science. Julia could be a huge enabler.

Having said that I find myself having a meltdown over 0.5 (specifically I had a tantrum yesterday when everything broke). I wanted to do some stuff on a private laptop so set up an env under windows. I jumped versions from 0.3.9 to 0.5.3478 because - why not? I'd also been using a 0.4 dev version sometimes, it worked ok but there was one issue that made me normally run 0.3.9 which was fine. However, Atom couldn't cope because HttpServer is @unix_only (whatever the that means, even the complier didn't know, it just said "documentation error")... I had about 100 compile errors in my code due to "' ' not allowed before '(' in foo (bar, bee)" but ok I just fixed those, one of the things that attracted me to Julia was whitespace liberalism, a minor irritation with Python, I find it easier to read code with a bit more whitespace. The trip wire was that I got the same thing from dependencies - like DataStructures.jl

This is intentional by the devs (I put an issue on GitHub and it got closed with that note). I do like "lets get it right", but even as someone just messing about with prime numbers in the evenings I can feel the pain of anyone who is trying to do more significant things. On the other hand a fork like the one you describe is going to be bad - Python 2/3 bad, and Julia is in no way as established as Python was when it had it's fork. The consequences are that the stable libraries are going to have to focus on the stable build and the problem is that at that point the dev version is irrelevant.

For Julia that is a big problem. There is a lot to do in terms of developing the core infrastructure in the language, see the idea of a registry in 0.6 or shrinking base and having a standard library for example. I do think that there is a worry that in covering off all cases and requirements the lovely simplicity of Julia may get diluted, the registry is especially a worry here because dealing with config files and issues is one of my bugbears and I was hoping Julia would stop this nonsense by "just use Git".

Still - I picked up Java at 0.7 and it really became useful at 1.4 Julia is on a much better trajectory already!
I was very confused. I thought this had something to do with Rust and nix[1].

[1]: https://nixos.org/nix/
Is there a logology/discipline where error messages are treated to medical-legal terminology?
We hit 18180 in all our images with Java applications. Workaround was to upgrade the kernel.
When billions are at stake, sophisticated fraud becomes more likely though. I wouldn't dismiss the theory out of hand.
Read the original article.

It clearly states that Kyle incorporated the company before even meeting Jeremy. Kyle incorporated it mid-Sept-2013, and then met Jeremy end-of-Sept-2013. Jeremy then left Nov-2013, and never worked on Cruise again.

> Until a company is incorporated, who do you think owns the company? Nobody at all?

If a company is not incorporated, then it's NOT a company. There is nothing to own. For it to be legal you need to incorporate and pay taxes.

> Does that mean I could go and incorporate your company for you and give myself all the equity?

Yes, if I have a company for years and not incorporate, and not pay taxes, and operate without the government knowing, you can incorporate a company with the same name and at the same address and give the equity to yourself. You would have to pay all the taxes, register all the trademarks etc. but at the point you are essentially doing so much work running a company anyways there's no doubt that it's essentially your company.

> In lieu of another contract, everyone who started the company together is an equal partner.

That's my point. You don't need another contract. The incorporation and the equity papers IS the contract. If he had equity, he is a partner. If he didn't, he is not. That's the contract.

Yes, everyone who did the original incorporation is an equal partner, that's fine I agree with that. But clearly Jeremy WAS NOT part of the original incorporation, and NEVER owned ANY stock after all these years. He wants to be paid AS IF he was the one who incorporated the company, AS IF he had equity.
The epic startup story of Karl and Bertha Benz
> DNS round robin load balancing: It’s now possible to load balance between containers with Docker’s networking. If you give multiple containers the same alias, Docker’s service discovery will return the addresses of all of the containers for round-robin DNS.

wait wait wait. I'm kind of new into docker world. And so far i've been struggling in understanding how to replicate a container in order to scale.
For example i want to run the same Django project 3 time as web1, web2, web3. If i do so now i've to expose 3 different ports, one for each. Plus, to make it working, I need to have a load balancing, thus i've to use HAProxy and do a load balancing to point to each of the container. Anytime I add a new machine (e.g., web4) i've to change the conf of HAProxy and restart it. This brings down the system for a moment. (is this the right approach btw?)

Going back to the cite paragraph. Now i can create many containers and dockers automatically does the routing for me? Am I right? or I misunderstood the meaning of the cited point?

I just need to create all of them with a --alias web ?
Systematic evaluation of what has worked for millennia is science. If you mean just gathering unstructured anecdotes of uncertain provenance about the past and using them to construct just-so stories as guides, well, that's not particularly likely to be more useful than just randomly guessing what you should eat, though it's pretty close to how many diet fads get created.
That image is just.... wrong :) Poor AI is going to have some nightmares.
I know this is going to sound cheesy but that's an amazing way to put it. It blew my mind.
You're saying that if you knew someone was going to kill you sometime in the near future, as long as you wouldn't see it coming, it wouldn't bother you? I expect you're in the minority on that.
There is a difference between company and corporation. A company can exist without being incorporated (and many are never incorporated), a corporation cannot.
The Nexus 4 was excluded from dev previews but still got Lollipop. I think it's possible that the same may happen with the Nexus 5 in this case.
> In practice, they have all the flaws of both the private and public sectors and end up being inefficient, ineffective, and expensive. (cf. housing, military contractors, etc.)

Depends in which practice. In Europe (e.g. Slovenia), public universities are reasonably good, cheap (free), and serve the majority of the population. In the UK, I think council housing was a great idea - until they started selling it off (i.e. privatizing it).
The linked paper specifically says "Jump Flooding in GPU with Applications to Voronoi Diagram and Distance Transform," so are you sure it's not both in this case?
Anybody know which retirement funds and other institutional investors are most exposed to Theranos through VC and other investment?
Similar skepticism of the "Freedom Markets (tm)" (Can I license your trademark :)). That said, can't one make the argument that the government providing lots of financing without adequately using the leverage that financing gave to bargain down prices distorted things?
The way I work is, I make an interface{} red-black-tree, and then when I need to store things in it I create functions around it.

Suppose I'm storing Tiles in a Level: the Level struct will contain a (private) RedBlackTree and I'll define GetTile(Pos) Tile and PutTile(Pos, Tile) on Level which do the casting to and from interface{}.

I still have type safety since I cannot put/get anything but Tiles in the RedBlackTree. But I didn't need generics.
For me, it is feeling like part of my OS. I have to use a whole bunch of other Mac apps, and Emacs (or vim) don't fit in. Mouse cut+paste is dodgy, and they use a whole bunch of different shortcut keys (I just instinctively type apple+s for save, apple+f for find, etc).

There seems (based on other users I know) two sweet points -- put your whole life in emacs, and give the other apps you have to use Emacs shortcuts, or no Emacs.

Some people's brains might find it easier to switch between two sets of shortcuts when switching between apps of course.
I can second that; my daughter used to get very upset interacting with other kids when she got into daycare (because of a delay in speech development). I would be playing with her for hours each day - it was all very repetitive and she was quite closed up within her own world, but then it all cleared up.
What would be your alternative?
Fine, but what if I need to do something like: create a shape, make 5 instances of it (all progressively offset, translated, and rotated), and give each one a different color and outline — all while still keeping the original shape editable? What if I have a polygon with a child polygon that needs to have the same angle on one of its sides as its parent? What if I want to give the shadows in different parts of my file the same opacity and color? What if I want to define the relationship between an object's width and the thickness of its borders? I run into these sort of problems all the time. Illustrator almost gets there with its non-destructive effects, but it's not enough. Doing it using code alone is awful, since these sorts of problems tend to be small (but essential) parts of a project, and I need the GUI for the rest.

A lot of vector art already runs as a program; it just happens to run in the artist's head, and requires far too much effort to update. There ought to be a general solution.
There's also these:

- https://runc.io/

- https://linuxcontainers.org/

And I'm not sure if they're the same thing, compatible, or what. I'm going to let someone else pick the winner for me. I'll come back to containers in like a year or so and see what the lowdown is.
I think you mean 'offshoring.' Eliminating outsourcing would close down every software consultancy, independent accounting firm and outside counsel firm.

As far as 'offshoring' -- I can't afford to pay onshore engineers $200+ and hour by hiring a consultancy for a short term project. So that project would never happen. With offshoring, I can afford to pay to get the project built. Once the project is built and actually generating revenue, then I can afford to hire onshore employees for the long term.

Don't be so quick to dismiss offshoring as a 'job killer' because there's a good chance that if it couldn't be done cheaply, it just wouldn't be done at all. Those things that are built by offshore teams-- those are going to result in dozens of eventual salespeople, marketing people as well as money for infrastructure and future development. All the the goes to zero if I can't use a lower cost offshore team at the outset. Most of us building software products don't have the luxury of a VC cousin in the incestuous circle jerk that is Silicon Valley venture capital. Some of us build companies using money we saved.

That concept certainly pisses off the Bernie and Trump voters who think labor protectionism is a good thing, but we don't live in the 1950s where creating a business involved having a factory and 'workers.' Creating a business should be easy and do By things like restricting offshoring is pretty close to the $15 minimum wage in sheer economic stupidity. If I can't offshore, then I will just do nothing. That capital just sits on the sidelines when it could be actually creating wealth. People seem to think jobs are created by huge companies with million dollar CEOs. That isn't the case. It's the small business owner that does most of the job creating -- not the big companies and not the government. It's the man or woman that puts their capital at risk to try to build something. We should be making that process easier. Start fast, fail fast. Yet when people talk about eliminating outsourcing and offshoring, they really don't think about that. They see business as some 'Dr. Evil' entity. The see the economy like fatalist Marxists: finite classes of workers and "the rich." The 'rich' are only looking to exploit people and keep then oppressed. That's bullshit 19th century thinking.

We need to make offshoring even easier! That will spur economic growth.
I fail to understand the logic behind all of this. Why not give the money to the universities directly? It seems super inefficient to create a whole industry around funding university education. Even more so when this system needs to be backed by government bailout guarantees.

With 'efficient' I mean converting a large percentage of high school kids into university degrees / or better a highly skilled work force. Handing >$10^6 in debt to these kids doesn't seem appealing at all. One might argue that the economic pressure of the debt increases the overall productivity of a workforce. However, doesn't it rather create a predominantly sad workforce?
EU Radio Lockdown Directive
The xamoom Integration API is released
I think there is an interesting pattern that every larger software interface that is designed mostly by the developers converges against the IDE in which it was developed. But then on the other hand, superficial designers often just adjust towards the look and feel of their preferred environment as well (e.g. tendency towards the old iPhone look back then, then suddenly switch towards the flat new look of iOS, etc. And even in non-mobile applications like web applications).
Memphis Meats
>you get the language simplicity

And the most complex toolchain imaginable. This is what turns me off to Java, personally, but I think my case is fairly representative.
There is nothing political about it, and speaking as someone on the inside it is simply ridiculous to think of it that way. What these real proposals show is that a lot of sincere effort has been spent by members of the core team writing, reviewing, and debating generics proposals over a span of multiple years. Ian only recently felt comfortable releasing them publicly, and so here they are.
Garbage collecting for the registry is a long overdue feature that is quite critical. I'm glad to see that it's now possible.
Can you find the sprite for the light bulb man that's a cue for the first Bald Bull fight. He's on the far right side of the ring, under bottom rope.

Seen here: https://youtu.be/U_iVHVGqMIU?t=1m16s
Here: https://youtu.be/U_iVHVGqMIU?t=1m47s
And, Here: https://youtu.be/U_iVHVGqMIU?t=3m27s
Home Depot Canada Website Listing Drills Priced “Lowest First”
The linked page only tells you how. I still fail to see why??
Basically, yes. But we don't have to make a traditional monitor, or have it be an extra component. Monitoring all the facets of, say, a code deployment, or a software build, or performance testing, is a dynamic thing. It may fail, or it may succeed, or it might be suspicious.

Normally we design systems for humans to determine that 3rd part; in this case, there should have been a system where humans could see the one or two pieces of unusual activity and investigated. But there wasn't, or it didn't work right. So a "fix" would be to develop software that adapts to nondeterministic behavior the way a human does. I wouldn't exactly call that monitoring, though.
> At the core, most programming languages are quite similar,

Absolutely not.

> The developer tools and communities shape the culture and ultimately the roadmap of the language.

Absolutely so. My fellow PL-ers sometimes forget this part :)---Thankfully this is changing.
> This statistic is incorrect. In 2014, there were 445 UC employees making >$500K/year each. This includes everybody, not everybody, not just administrators.

Not the OP, but what you're saying just proves him/her right. You're basically saying that he/she had provided a number with only 10% margin of error (which on the Internets is not bad) and then went all semantics on him/her, I'm talking about the part with the people not being "administrators". For better or for worse you can call a person earning >$500k a janitor on her/his employment papers, but I'm still 99.99% sure that person is still doing highly administrative tasks (like setting up golf matches in his/her google calendar) and not mopping the floors.

And the part where you say that artificially subsidizing a finite product (in this case houses) does not cause its price to go up makes me wish that you're not in any way related to the economics discipline. Because if you were then I'd say that the future does not look bright for students of economics.
The toolchain is what's so awesome about Java - moving to a language like Go means you lose so much, it's painful.
Robot Turtles seems to be thought well of, I did the kickstarter for it (so far my only one) and I think my son is just about old enough to play it.

For practicals, Shoots and Ladders may be the most like day to day coding :)
This just seems crazy to me... and I thought only HNers might care about this sort of thing.

This is a massive company in Canada, with 180 stores and almost 30,000 employees... who just updated their website, and still cannot get simple "rank by price" database queries in check.

It boggles the mind, and makes their website experience extremely frustrating.

Just venting and curious if anyone out there has any experience as to how something like this could happen.

It's been like this for years, and I have even written them once informing them of the problem, yet it persists.
I think the best viewpoint I've encountered on what people mean by "class" is this:

Two families are of the same social class if a marriage between them would be unsurprising. Money is a sideshow.
Could you recommend any that you have had experience with?
Considering that anything more complex than a primitive in JS is implemented as a prototype chain attached to a first-class-function constructor, I'd say that, in JS, types are absolutely values.
I'm less worried about vehicle incidents on flat surfaces and more worried by anything happening on mountain roads with deadly drops on one side.
You seem to be operating with a bizarre definition of the law.

I have a consulting company. It has clients, it has revenue, and I pay taxes on that revenue. It even has a trade name.

It is not incorporated. That does not mean that you can come along, incorporate it, and say the company actually belongs to you.

By default, the result of your work is your property. This is a central concept of property rights. You can transfer that property to others in exchange for compensation, but without a contract the work remains yours.

Thus, everyone whose work flows into a company automatically is receiving a portion of that company (it is a result of their work) unless some other agreement overrides that (ex. I agree to a vesting schedule).

You cannot be bound by a contract you didn't sign. Jeremy never signed anything agreeing to give up the equity he is automatically entitled to.
> I've never had my hand luggage weighed.

You've never flown Ryanair.

Ensuring hand luggage fits within the required dimensions and under designated weight allowance is now pretty common for low cost carriers (European at least, which is my experience).

Checked in baggage is a revenue earner for the airline. Many passengers try to cram all they need into hand luggage instead, to save sometimes >£40 on the cost of checking in baggage. Ensuring hand luggage is weighed and measured is just another way to squeeze the revenue hose.
A visually stunning simulator of seasons changing – WebGL magic
I don't think startup time is an issue, and memory is definitely manageable - check out LMAX Disruptor (https://lmax-exchange.github.io/disruptor/)
Should we scrap benefits and pay everyone £100 a week?
We have switched to Nix as internal dependency manager for our C++ project. It is really exciting! No more "after commit XXX you need to (re)build/update YYY with ZZZ". Developers just type `nix-shell` and get sane guaranted to work environment on their local machines corresponding to git HEAD. If we need to add or patch dependency we just edit and commit nix file. And if developer need to rollback to old commit/branch it will get old/custom environment from cache without submodule rebuilds.
I am an open source developer. I don't sell anything. I am just trying to let people know there is something they can use to make their lives easier.

I don't care about traffic (actually I don't want unrelated traffic - a lot of noise - the key resource wasted is my time), but I do care a lot about involvement.

Since a title can actually trigger involvement, I understand it is good, especially for the readers. Isn't it?

To my understanding, it is good since people that should have been informed about the context in question, have actually been found and informed.

Check this thread for example. A lot of people found something new, learned something. Compare it to the previous one. No one learned anything.

So, what do you think?
Shall I pay some attention on titles and their effectiveness?
Psycho/human qualities with computer characteristics are my CSS in terms of language problems. Objectification is, beyond "The Alphabet Effect" and https://archive.today/?run=1&url=http://web.archive.org/web/..., just a memory return path.
It's really not bad in practice. I've measured the amount of compilation time that generic instantiations take up and it's always been pretty low. Something like 20% (it's been a while, so take with a grain of salt), and that's with a naive implementation that doesn't try to optimize polymorphic code or perform ahead of time mergefunc. 20% is well within the project's demonstrated tolerance for compiler performance regressions from version to version. And you can do better with relatively simple optimizations. Generic compilation has been well-studied for decades; there are no unsolved problems here.

I would heavily advise against trying to do better than monomorphization with intensional type analysis (i.e. doing size/alignment calculations at runtime). We tried that and it was a nightmare. It didn't even save on compilation time in practice because of high constant factor overhead, IIRC.

Monomorphization is one of those things, like typechecking in ML, where the worst-case asymptotic time bounds look terrible on paper, but in practice it works out fine.

People point to C++ compilation times as a negative counterexample, but most of the compilation time here is in the parsing and typechecking, which a strongly typed generics implementation will dodge.
Oh that last statement... Such a disappointment. The entire post was well written and brought out the point of a partnership and 'doing what it takes', 'giving it all you've got' pretty well and then it ends with 'a woman's ingenuity and persistence'. Is that the point of the post? That sometimes you need a woman 'cos they bring some special ingenuity and persistence?
Aka Extensible Web https://extensiblewebmanifesto.org/
In this case it seems like a very thin wrapper that leverages the type system to allow catching a whole class of errors at compile time, like using exhaustiveness checks to make sure a function call handles all possible return values. I think the small overhead is well worth it.

The original API is not "broken" per se, it's just limited by the language features ("magical" return values vs. tagged unions or whatever they're called in Rust, I don't remember.)
I found flights to Clermont-Ferrand on flychecker at € 144