skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Would you consider such a language to have first-class integers?

Yes, I still would, because integers can be bound to variables, passed to and returned from functions, and stored in fields of objects.

I would think that the language had a silly syntactic restriction -- which is the same thing I think about Python -- but it wouldn't materially change how I would write programs. It's just that, before any expression using an integer literal, I would have to name the literal.

Well, same here. If you want to use a function too complicated to fit in Python's restricted lambda expression syntax, you have to use a named local function. I agree that it's silly, and I'd never design a language like that myself, but again it wouldn't materially change how I write programs -- it just means that what would have fit in one expression would now, in some cases, require multiple statements.

Trying to draw a fine distinction between "higher-order" and "supporting first-class functions" doesn't appeal to me; I think of the latter as the definition of the former. (I'm sure I would have trouble remembering which was supposed to be which.)

But again, I have no problem with criticizing the design decision -- just not using these terms :-)
Yeah I think you are in line with my thinking on this. I just almost feel as though it's a losing battle, but at the same time I think it's one that I need to fight
I have printed out one of these before and it made me feel really crappy.
This is very nice library with very good and simple concepts.

One thing still bugs me. Chaining adds space in between the tokens. This is not always desirable. Adding another function out would solve this (outs would read then outs(pace)).

Edit: I noticed while readying the test cases that it is possible to change the separator using outs.sep(' ');

I am now wondering how nice it would play with multi threading.
Ask HN: Have you sat in on acquisition discussions? How to ask for a billion $?
People of HN, have you ever sat in on the first acquisition discussions? What was it like, tell your story in the comments.....

How does it work?

Company founders sit down in a room with a possible acquirer. The acquirer says "how much do you want for your company?". And the company founders say "A billion dollars".

Does it really go like that?

Seems hard to believe people can have the gumption to ask for such large numbers.

How do the founders get the courage to ask for such incredible numbers? What is it that makes a deal like that work? What does the acquirer say next? Do they laugh?
"startups are far more likely to die by suicide than by homicide"

This is a very interesting quote.
Eh, there are tons of EXCELLENT and not-very-expensive modern phono stages. Just avoid DJ stuff
Thank you, this is really solid advice
Many states and municipalities will soon be facing their own pension crisis. We can all rest-assured that all our taxes will be going up.
This idea reminds me of the "Mr. Apology" answering machine project. Poignant stuff. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Bridge
2099? Maybe my daughter (b. 2004) will live to see it; in fact there's every reason to believe she and her cohort will live well into the 22nd Century, barring accidents, apocalyptic wars, terrorism, etc.

I would hope they could get from 20% of light speed to 40%, and get one of those Coke cans to A. Centauri twice as fast, so more of us will live to see it.

If you can send one such object, you can send a swarm of hundreds, and when they get there, those that survive will be able to do some interesting imaging and data gathering work for those eagerly waiting back home.

Of course, by 2100 it's possible that vastly superior propulsion techniques (or the highly desirable wormhole technique described in the article) will have been developed that will blow right past these primitive tin cans.

But you have to crawl before you can walk, and walk before you can run. The bottom line here is that humanity, or at least some significant and affluent chunk of it, needs to want to do this badly enough to commit the resources. If not Euro-U.S.-Japan, perhaps eventually China or India.

Or our robotic successors....
If by "increasingly few" you mean "virtually none" in 2016, then you're correct.
I like flying from Canada to Europe because when I arrive, I'm primed to be able to party until 4:00 or 5:00 am, like the locals. Whereas back home, I'm so used to going to bed at 11 and getting up at 6, it takes a lot of effort to stay up late. This kind of jet lag helps me relive my twenties, and since I'm never there on business, always just pleasure, it works out very well.
Yeah, I know I should be like this. I think it was just years of trauma that have made me somewhat unable to do this. And hey are all in their own little 'cool kid' clique, that is in favor with the boss
> What if single mothers were held responsible for their choice to have children with bad men?

Then children will suffer.
How about you answer one of my questions before you ask me yet another one. What exactly are you proposing if neither people nor government are allowed to own property? I'm not aware of any such scheme in all of modern civilization. The onus is on you to explain.
What's funny is how many of them are from, about or feature something from Michael Arrington.
Just taking a guess here: the really interesting technical submissions might just appeal to the users who are fond of that subset of tech, but the political ones have a broader interest? Or maybe it's that the technical submissions don't really cause the same emotional response (well, barring stuff like Heartbleed, or other serious issues in tech).
So are you claiming that the tenants mentioned are somehow worse off than if those trailers weren't available for rent at all?

For something to be unethical, someone has to be harmed by it, yes?
Yeah I'm debating this. I really like the work and it's in line with my desired career trajectory, but the culture is just toxic. That and I'm just an engineer 1 so I don't have a huge amount of opportunity
The original calculations probably counted on a growing economy, 6% year-over-year inflation, and pension fund returns to trivialize this obligation.
Banks have made many decisions about the acceptable level of credit card and identity theft. These essentially come down to - quite a bit is ok. For all you know GCHQ does report such evidence, but if they don't I would expect it to be because nothing will realistically be done about it.

When something unusual, or of a large magnitude, comes along these organisations will talk with each other to help mitigate the damage.

GCHQ does a lot of good work alongside invading our privacy.
Volatile is not just for memory mapped hardware, but is also needed when using shared memory, say between two processes.

I have been bit by not having volatile modifiers for data residing in shared memory. Funny thing (and retrospectively obvious) is, it worked in debug mode, but in production data was seen by the other process. It was a fun exercise to find it one.
This isn't just a problem in Puerto Rico. My state is dealing with this issue, and their solution was to cut pensions. I know several people who worked for the state for 30+ years, who were promised life-long health insurance and other benefits as part of their pension packages, who are not getting any of those benefits now. Even after all the cuts they have done, it still isn't working.
Hahaha I needed a good laugh, I was secretly hoping someone there may read this. But hen again they aren't that cool
"why the lucky stiff"
...gone, but not forgot.
> But I believe Rust is better than Go, also I don't like Go without any reason

Well...nobody can do anything then except say that you just power through Rust tuts? What exactly are/were you expecting?
Deep learning driven jazz generation (Keras, Theano) – has a SoundCloud
One interesting argument I've seen is that there is a serious demand for lotteries and gambling, and that making them illegal won't stop them (as it hasn't for drugs or prostitution). Instead, it just creates a black market for gambling, which is even more problematic than a well-regulated state one with a predictable and reasonable house rake. We may be trying to fight the human psyche itself here, for which making things illegal tends not to work.

But at the very least the states shouldn't be advertising the damn things!
This reads to me as "People have no money because they have no money", which is tautological.
I like your style
I don't think that is an accurate thing to say. There seems to be a widespread misunderstanding of the word bailout which leads people to believe that what was given was a gift rather than a loan with a lot of strings.

And a lot of the motivation was self interest in order to prevent contagion and also to allow the banks with loans in bailout countries to recover their money. Much of the money that went in went straight out again in loan repayments and a lot of debt was transferred from private debtors onto the shoulders of the taxpayers in those countries.
Raw methane, dumped straight into the atmosphere (whether through leaks like the one in Southern California last fall, clathrates melting, cow farts, or otherwise), yes. Give or take.

Burning methane yields ... CO₂ and water.
It seems to have helped some lower-income people in some states get coverage they couldn't afford otherwise, with the downside that everyone else's insurance rates have skyrocketed and the insurance companies have had record profits.

The whole thing was a stupid idea by a right-wing thinktank. It tries to help by establishing a cap on profits and spreading the costs around by requiring everyone to be insured, but it depended on states increasing their Medicaid eligibility, which red states did not. It did nothing to actually decrease the cost of care.

I consider it a mess, not a complete failure. The problem is that we only have one candidate who's serious about fixing the situation, and it's unlikely he's going to get his party's nomination. His competitor thinks this system is wonderful and defends it. On the other side, one guy wants to repeal it altogether and just screw over anyone who can't afford insurance, and with the other guy no one really knows what he's going to do because he keeps changing his position, though he did say something in favor of universal healthcare a while back, but his current website has switched to some standard lame Republican ideas about letting insurance companies compete over state lines, so they'll all just move to the least-regulated state like Wyoming.
QML is amazing for desktop apps as well. The only problem with QML on mobile is that stuff just won't look native or match native themes. Not the end of the world though.
Lots of people know how to create value, i.e. combine A and B and wind up with A*B of value.

Take Edison, for example. He made himself a fortune by figuring out how to take a glass bottle and add a bamboo filament, and sell a light bulb.
I don't see that: they still have to compete with other providers, so they have no incentive to spend their own money to increase the general demand for their kind of service, since their competitors "free ride" off such efforts.
Teeth and Bones from Ancient Rome Hold Clues to Migration and Slavery
In every case worldwide the error was assuming continuous growth at mid 20th century rates (when many of these plans were put into place).
I couldn't agree more. I joined thefacebook in 2004 and at the time it was a great way to connect with peers and get to know a bit about how they think and what their interests are. (Remember when clicking on a movie title or band name would just show you a list of other people in your network who also had it listed?) These days there's just so much noise that it becomes a waste of time to do anything more involved than clicking the like button and moving on.

Facebook needs to realize that they can't have it both ways. Facebook is either a site for people or a site for advertisers, not both.
Here's the thing, though: when some element of a language is subject to silly restrictions that other first-class elements of the language are not subject to, that element is, by definition, second-class. The reason being that you can't treat it the way you'd treat any other first-class element.
A soup can be sweet, sour, tangy, meaty, bitter, in addition to plenty of other characteristics.

>So are you arguing 2 === 120 or are you arguing 2 === 5, but whichever one it is, you're missing the point.

It's pretty clear that I'm not arguing either of those (being that I made no mention of cardinality,) but if you want to put words into my mouth, I can see why you'd think I'd be focusing on those kinds of irrelevant details.

My point is that the number of samples taken, in and of itself doesn't tell you anything about the significance of a conclusion. You need to know how the sample relates to the population, and how the results characterize the population through the sample.
This is the whole point of bankruptcy: when past mistakes collide with present reality, the best way forward is almost always a controlled restructuring of everyone's expectations. Unfortunately, there are various roadblocks in the way of sensible bankruptcies for government entities swamped with pension debt. The major problem is that there is no provision in the bankruptcy code for a state to file for restructuring. Furthermore, there are statutory and constitutional protections for pensions, which are usually the most unsustainable sort of debt for states and municipalities.

One state at the cutting edge of this situation is Illinois: the Illinois Supreme Court has in recent years struck down various measures to attempt to restructure the state's untenable pension obligations. Such measures will prevent the state from making a controlled crash landing and will instead result in the state flying straight into the ground at 600 mph.
There's a single problem with Right vs Left debates: they can't understand the other's point.

1) The Right can't recognize there's a problem with contemporary elites ("They Deserved it"). Poverty is all about the government.

2) The Left can't recognize the government plays a role on this . Inequality is all about greedy rich people.
I'd be inclined to agree, only on the condition that there's plenty of unused land around, available for next to nothing. If that's the case, this trailer park owner is getting a return on her investment.

However, if there isn't marginal land available nearby, a portion of her return is monopolistic-- the renters have no alternative than to pay rent on this land.
Every time an existential post is made here, I have to remind people:

As technologists you guys should have a little more confidence/faith/whatever in the progress we're making every passing day, than is evident from the tone of most of the comments here.

Smart-phones, social media, startups, IPOs, these are huge blind spots of technology. It makes you think that's all there is to it.

Technology is much more than that. In that regard I always remember the DARPA's 21st century forecast of what's the most relevant human progress:

- Info"Tech"

- Bio"Tech"

- Nano"Tech"

We're making huge advances in all three (another blind spot is linear thinking when technology actually progresses exponentially).

With regards to biotech:

- CRISPR has made huge advances

- stem cells are making rapid progress

- supercomputers and advanced algorithms (including machine learning) are getting to the point where we're putting human biology on solid "informatic" footing every passing year. (IMPORTANT: And this is without assuming onset of human-level AI, which in itself is forecasted to happen by 2030. If that happens, then the progress would be unbelievably faster!).

- but most importantly, people like Aubrey de Grey are "waking up" medical researchers and gerontologists from a narrow view of "cure cancer", "cure HIV" and asking them to treat "aging" as a problem and treat it as an object of manipulation.

If people like you (technologists) can get out of the pessimism of pro-aging trance, a lot can be accomplished in the next 20 to 40 years.
I assume you actually mean that luck cannot be removed from the equation when you say "I would not agree that luck cannot be removed from the process."?

You may be onto something there, certainly resources assist with wealth creation, but there's very little that is a sure bet, and risk and reward in the financial sense are frequently correlated. If it is a given that one wishes to minimise the degree to which they are beholden to luck (reducing risk) they are simultaneously frequently taking the other side of that bargain too (reducing reward). And you end up with poor people working terribly bad reward jobs on wages that left to market forces might not even be enough to cover their cost of living at all, but are pushed up by minimum wage laws, and subsidised by state social welfare programs (put it this way, and it's actually the state that profits from the poverty of other people by trading subsistence living for political capital, a conclusion the guardian would likely be utterly horrified by)

People just trying to scrape by, keep a roof over their heads, clothes on their backs and food in their bodies are not prone to taking smart, calculated risks on their financial situation. In fact the example that springs to mind with the kinds of risks that these people take are actually really bad ones (lotteries, gambling in general, etc). They don't for example build a wealth portfolio, start a business, or even just invest in the skills necessary to get a better job that would yield a higher wage.

It seems that risk management education is a vanishingly rare thing in the group under discussion, and perhaps that's something that would go some way to addressing the role that you highlight when you refer to luck.
Few Ideas:

1. Let a non-profit run those kinds of businesses. The non-profit , before starting would establish clear rules that prevent eviction, discrimination and the other nasty stuff. Financing should be gotten from institutional investors, by promising some fixed rate of return.

2. Let the government run that, it works pretty well in many places around the world , in creating a relatively stable living environment.

3. better regulation to prevent nasty behaviors.
I'm sure I'll have huge regrets no matter what I do.
Life is too long for toxic culture.
US housing has become much more expensive as a fraction of income since WWII. As the article points out, the big problem in the Great Depression was food, not housing. In 1950, most people in apartments in NYC were paying about 10% of their income for rent. Now, 60% in NYC, about 30% nationally.

Why is this?

Some of it is tax policy. Tax policy is very favorable to property owners. Not only can landlords deduct mortgage interest and depreciate over 27.5 years, when someone buys an old building, they can depreciate it all over again.

Antitrust law doesn't seem to be applied to rental property. In some smaller cities, there are only a few big landlords.[1]

Given the current low cost of borrowing, rental housing prices should have dropped. But they haven't.

[1] http://people.oregonstate.edu/~emersonp/rentcontrol/rc2.pdf
There is a limit on the ability of states to raise taxes to cover pension obligations. There is already a net internal migratory pattern from northern states to southern ones. States like raising taxes to fund pension obligations will only accelerate that trend, gutting the tax base those states are counting on to make ends-meet.
I wonder how Monopoly would play if you got assessed for Income Tax when you passed Go, or perhaps every fifth turn, instead of when you landed on a particular square.
Did the author intentionally repeatedly misspell "extrovert" just to mess with us?
I know anecdotal evidence and all that, but I've never received a genuine report from a bank saying that a card has been stolen, but I've gotten a lot of annoying false positives saying my card has been declined because I've traveled more than a 2 hour drive away from home and had the nerve to use it.
An interesting quote.

I know I wouldn't publicise it - it is rather vulgar to use the death of a child to improve ones public images; publicly granting such a request will also bring the problem of more being made in the future.

There is also the risk to the book to consider. I can completely understand if an author chose not to give anybody special consideration. It is an unfortunate fact that it is impossible to guarantee the security of such a reading.

Not an easy decision, and I think the publisher is speaking out of turn by mentioning that such events have been considered.
This is true - the casualisation of the workforce is a real problem. If Labor ever gets into power I hope they recognise this as a problem and make it harder to use this loophole.

The best way of handling this, I feel, is to only allow a percentage of any business to be casualised, unless special dispensation is granted. Also, there it should be financially more expensive to follow this tactic - this way those of fixed contracts get compensated for the risk of their employment ending, and employers have an incentive to employee more full time employees.
That's an awesome site. I've been reading this book on a specific implementation of the design thinking methods with GV's "design sprints" -- might be worth checking out if you haven't heard of it already: http://www.gv.com/sprint/
> Improved regulation of the rental market would be a minor improvement at best.

Taking Desmond as an example, even with no rent he would have to live on $20 a day. That would still be grinding poverty.
Webpack – The Confusing Parts
Aptostichus angelinajolieae
The amendment brushed off concern about
future financial strain on the pensions,
saying their investments were producing
revenue twice what actuaries had
approved, so the “measures won’t be
burdensome.”

I wonder if that's a lie, or just very selective quoting (I think this was for the 1973 bill though).
> I'm just so glad that someone at GCHQ maintains their sense of humour whilst being a spook.

> I don't care about anything else

I suspect that's exactly the intention of this sort of PR.
Don't know if that's possible, I haven't worked in the details of BitLocker, but... It derives the key from a secret that is stored in hardware (a trusted key platform module I think it's called) or somehow related to the user (MS account? password?), so I don't think it'd be posible to encrpyt something through BitLocker that can't be unlocked by the legitimate user.

Then again, I'm a bit sloppy on BitLocker mechanisms.
Children will suffer either way. You can accept a relatively small amount of suffering and address the issue in the here and now (stigmatize the women, pose alternatives like adoption, thus set an example of what not to do) or you can go the other route (make excuses, subsidize their behavior) and end up with a massive self-perpetuating culture of single motherhood, dysfunction, and criminality in the long run. We're currently seeing the latter. If you thought eugenics was terrible, consider what the opposite would look like.
That happened to me on my last trip to Europe. Both my wife and I woke up every night at 2:10am for the first few days. The precision of it was crazy. However, we would take a few ambient and be right back asleep and feeling great the next day. Amazing what twelve hours of sleep can do!