skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Think that's tough? Try learning formal methods and how to design software to be correct by construction. Haskell would be an easy sell. But regardless of language few seem capable of catching errors in logic -- the kind that lead to race-conditions, starvation, dog-piling, cache misses, consistency errors, etc.

The kinds of errors whose frequency and impact we are ill suited to estimate. "Bah, that could only happen for 1 in 100k requests." Now your system is serving 3M requests a second. It's very likely you'll be seeing that error.

Don't be discouraged though. You might read about a new distributed lock in an important open source cloud orchestration framework that the public is building service infrastructure on and not find a single executable specification. Doesn't mean you can't write one and submit a pull request when you inevitably find errors in it. You just have to keep such alien super powers under wraps.

Similarly if your goal is to write more Haskell at your job: just find opportunities to use it. Preferably ones where you can keep the secret of the sausage to yourself. When your bosses and colleagues begin to wonder how you consistently kick butt you can tell them. Then they might want to learn too.

At least that's the story I tell myself. Most people are happy in their own instance on Plato's cave. If you bring in new ideas you might be ousted from the group. Or fired.

Just keep doing the best mediocre job you can and try not to think about it too hard!
That was my first thought: "Is Cordell Green building a computer? Cool!"
Free Panda 2016 Antivirus Full Version with Crack Download
> If consumers could walk away from their ISP, then if that ISP actually started throttling Netflix, all of those consumers would leave for an ISP that didn't do that.

That's true for Netflix and a few larger sites. But for the other 90% of sites there aren't enough customers who would switch for ISPs to care.
What people have been saying, is that if most CEOs do insider trading, and only a few have charges brought against them, then that might indicate an abuse of power.

Since the other CEOs (those whose companies wilfully broke the law), weren't investigated, it's a little difficult to be sure so long after the facts. As far as I know, none of them have been indited for helping the US government break the law - arguably a more serious crime than insider trading.

The argument is that it's an instance of: "You bring me the man, I'll find you the crime."[1]

Now, it could be that in the telecom industry at the time, in the US, there was little or no corruption and insider trading, and Nacchio was an exception. I certainly don't think he was framed. But there are at least some indications that it could have been a "tit for tat" that landed him in prison.

[1] (reportedly stated by Stalin's chief of secret police, Lavrentiy Beria -- but I've been able to find a source).
Mention Microsoft and we always get someone that can't see past their bigotry in order to actually address the issue being discussed.
Out of runway, desperately trying to close Series A
What I find hilarious (and a little soul-sucking for the politicians), is that the money that they raise from taxpayers is used...to convince taxpayers to elect them, so they can raise money from taxpayers...ad nauseam
Lobbyists must be doing something to warrant all the money involved, no? Arguably, lawmakers are being persuaded. Could it just be the abstract strength of their arguments? Somehow, I doubt that.
Leiningen, Release Me
Smart Kids Should Skip High School
However, it would be hard to see how Microsoft could architect things that way too -- they supply an Operating System with constant security updates...
Neurolaw May One Day Change the Justice System
yes before neoliberalism the world was perfect and had no problems.
Yes. While your logic is of course faultless, I do feel that white male authority figures are a fair point of satirical identification... especially those who can't take what portions of said group has been dishing out for centuries and get perturbed in response. :)
Yes, it's a simple first order function on some kind of collection.

A sum function is not very `function' at all. (It sure feels at home in functional languages, more than in imperative bit-by-bit piecemeal programming, sure.)
Invoking a vague ideology as the root cause feels like a diversion in itself from the basic problem of rich people getting richer while the poor get poorer and more indebted. The obvious solutions, debt forgiveness and plain old money/land handouts are for some reason being resisted by the elite in favor of promoting some form of normativity, "this is the way things always were and should be" and leading us back to feudalism.
IMO, these valuation write downs are not driven by the decline in the value of underlying assets but the lack of liquidity of positions in such assets.

When the liquidity seized in high yield corporate bond market in Q4'15, it brought in to focus liquidity of all other asset classes. Most institutions dealing in assets that are not readily tradable are demanding higher discount for risk due to lower liquidity of such assets. This is resulting in lowering of fair market value for such assets. This is happening all across the alternative asset space and not just for private startups.
Identity Velocity
I think the idea that the author was trying to express was that in a spreadsheet language, you select a data range and then choose a function to perform on that data. That's the "functional" aspect I took away from my reading of it.
Wow, that's pretty verbose. But I guess the long variable names are partly to blame.
You might like Functional Relational Programming. See http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/1446
I don't think "programmer" and "non-programmer" is a binary distinction. Most programmers don't think when iterating an array, but even experienced programmers sometimes take a non-programmer like approach when they see an unfamiliar problem.

In other words, if we could make a programming language that's more approachable to non-programmers, we might benefit everyone.
Why not give away free coffee?
I hope Apple is secretly building its TouchID to totally replace passwords. God I dont want to remember Password anymore.
True, with the other difference being that you can live in a house, but you can't live in securities or the bank vault. A house has actual utility (well, the first one), hence all the tax benefits (in theory).

What I think is kind of ridiculous are all the benefits for second homes and beyond. IMO, if you're wealthy enough to afford a second home, you don't need any more government subsidies; all the benefits should go to people who don't yet have a place to live that they own. I can definitely see how this would be a very unpopular opinion among those with lots of potential money to lose if they could not keep the lower classes of people renting the property which they bought a lifetime++ deed to at a one-time cost.
HP hasn't been making calculators for years. They buy calculators from some Taiwanese maker and put their logo on them.
The obvious solution to gun violence is to give everyone nuclear weapons. The lack of military instinct is costly for our society.
Hmmm, ok, so I think cognitive empathy probably subsumes affective empathy, with safeguards to stop you from getting overwhelmed by it. [edit: Or at least therapists do both of these things.]

Good question. I think therapists have an obligation to treat racists without prejudice. I've read a few papers written about the treatment of repulsive clients. Many times just by listening to and validating pain, the pain will shift and the defense - which may well be racism - will fall apart. So then I think the question is, is malignant racism only ever acceptable as a symptom of a deeper problem? I probably would be okay if the answer here was yes. (Unlike homosexuality, for example, because unlike racism, even if you construed homosexuality to be a defense, it's much harder to show that it's an unhealthy defense that actually hurts anyone.)
Invention, creativity, and the benefits of invention are a topic for much exploration.

The 34 inventions mentioned are a small set -- that's just at the threshold of large-sample statistics for normally distributed data, and the datapoints here may well not bbe.

For a larger set of inventions, Joseph Needham's Science and Civilisation in China might provide an interesting basis. Under development for over half a century, the 27 volume work (several still in process) details thousands of years of innovation in China, in excruciating detail. The work's Wikipedia entry alone is staggering. Needham's biography has been written by Simon Winchester, and is highly recommended.

There are numerous books on innovation I recommend. There's What Technology Wants by Kevin Kelley and W. Brian Arthur's The Nature of Technology both cover inventions and inventing.

Robert Gordon's The Rise and Fall of American Growth (2016) looks at the era of invention and development since 1870. Gordon writes in great detail, but very readably, of the tranformation of the US landscape, cityscape, and suburbscape over this period, focusing especially on domestic living and lifestyle, transportation, food, medicine and health, work, communications, and entertainment. I've got disagreements with some of Gordon's economic thinking, but his history is solid.
I've been working on teaching developers to not just use encryption, but to use it properly, for the past year or so. I'd like to think it's making a difference, but only time will tell.
> There is virtually no way to have a consensus on what precisely needs to be guaranteed. I would personally prefer to move to a state that does not "guarantee" health insurance (I will pay for health insurance myself).

There was a consensus; we call it the Constitution. The problem is that American lawmakers today aren't able to negotiate a single law let alone a document like that.

States are not really a solution to that problem: large states have gridlock much like the feds, and small states create the patchwork of laws that prevent me from mailing you a beer but ensuring some lawyer at LargeCo will be paid to figure it out. And all states are more vulnerable to corporate capture than the feds are.

Laboratories of democracy work when we have democracies that are worth studying, and when politicians adopt fact-based policies instead of ideological ones. But we do not live in that world, and have not for at least 30 years.
It just occurred to me, reading: "To be clear, we appreciate that there are times when secrecy around a government warrant is needed. This is the case, for example, when disclosure of the government’s warrant would (...) allow people to destroy evidence and thwart an investigation.", that we shouldn't be too broad in denying the ability to destroy evidence or thwart investigations.

Consider charges of conspiracy, or of access to classified material. If the suspect destroys the evidence, and commits/have not already committed any other crimes -- should we really use the resources to investigate and prosecute such thought crimes?

We risk loosing sight of the fact that punishment is not a goal, it's a means to an end. Hopefully that end is a free and safe society.
Oh, I was thinking more like trees, biodiversity, and water honestly. Sharks, plankton, etc. Even if oil became scarce, energy doesn't look like an issue in my lifetime, there's always coal and nuclear.

But like rainforests are going away real quick.
MySQL with default collation / locale / operators does case insensitive string comparison IIRC
This sort of thing was a big issue in game development about 10-15 years ago. It was just becoming possible to build immersive, big worlds, and Everquest-like games were seen as the future of gaming.

Then came "mobile", with casual gaming and much less immersive games.

Now the game industry has the Hollywood sequel problem. Looking at the list of AAA titles for 2016, there's a Doom sequel, an XCom sequel, a Borderlands spinoff, a Deus X sequel, a Mirrors Edge reboot, two Tom Clancy things, an Uncharted sequel, yet another Street Fighter, a Crackdown sequel, a Dark Souls sequel, a Gears of War sequel, and, inevitably, Final Fantasy 15. A big question is whether those will be better in first person VR than in the usual backed off camera view. Playing those in VR will involve a lot of head turning.
But if Letsencrypt were served with an NSL demanding access to their signing keys, how would we know?
Great example. An industry that has historically preyed on the unfortunate.
Teachout: “If any of the great corporations of the country were to hire adventurers who make market of themselves in this way, to procure the passage of a general law with a view to the promotion of their private interests, the moral sense of every right-minded man would instinctively denounce the employer and employed as steeped in corruption.”

Alex Mayyasi notes that the First Amendment guarantees the right to petition the Government. However, Teachout was discussing a case in 1866, many years before corporations were granted First-Amendment rights. Indeed, I believe that only public-interest corporations were legal in 1866.

It was a very different time. So it goes.
I don't read it that way. To me the use of the word "AND" is a red herring, as it wasn't meant to imply a logical operation, but rather in the usual sense (and meaning "plus that") to denote the range as half open.

[90, infinity)

as opposed to:

(90, infinity)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interval_%28mathematics%29#Inc...
Are you saying the first paragraph is a lie? Or is there something else I'm missing?

"This morning we filed a new lawsuit in federal court against the United States government to stand up for what we believe are our customers’ constitutional and fundamental rights – rights that help protect privacy and promote free expression." (my emphasis)
AbiWord reminds me of WriteNow, which was my favorite word processor on 68000 Macs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WriteNow
Without the end-user involved in the entire development process, with no BA, it is still waterfall aka 'fake agile'. Creating a division in software development creates a gap. Shouldn't even be sitting in a separate office / section of office / in that state of mind.

It is not "in software development." It is product development.
Let's say it was -- how could you, the end user, go about evaluating that claim?

Even if the perfect technical solution existed, it wouldn't fix this problem.
If a point of satire is embedded in an internet post and someone gets offended, is it still valid humour? Yes. Should we all write PC all the time? No.
>same for medicine, except that the human body is actually a human construct

The human body is merely (re)produced by humans, whereas with "construct" here we mean the design of things (which, in the body's case would be, e.g. nature, evolution, etc).
The insecurity of OpenBSD
SageMathCloud has collaborative Jupyter notebooks (like Google docs) with TimeTravel and multiple cursors.
Thanks for the feedback on the announcement blog post. I added a short description and link to the project home page at the top of the blog post after reading the feedback here. Thanks!
I order from Google express. Sometimes orders go missing and I've noticed that laundry detergent (liquid) gets siphoned. Google even tapes it.
I've seen this story before - worked for a company with very disciplined management, focusing on steady predictable growth - 25% a year, not 200% a year, but doing so profitably without VC capital. And then the venture backed competitors who didn't care about making a profit popped up...

It is a vicious cycle - once a market attracts the attention of VCs, it becomes really hard not to join in.
This is something I'm having trouble explaining to Business Analysts - they tend to think and define systems declaratively whereas when we receive a set of requirements we prefer to work from an imperative set of instructions. I've not succeeded in conveying this successfully (they either think devs are just being difficult/lazy or they just fail to grasp what we need) - anyone else suffered this? If so have you got any tips as to how it could be better conveyed?
Immersive is your term. I'm talking about emergence. These are completely different things. Most typical MMOs aren't so great with emergence.
Klingons are like Vampires in this case. You know the rules for Vampires, right? Whatever rules you want because they aren't real.
Modern progressives cite neo liberalism as the cause of the wealth divide you mention. The solution you advocate is specifically not neo liberial. I personally am most annoyed of the nasty habit of the government creating a regulatory institution, and that institution becoming legal anti entryist enforcement. e.g the FDA makes market penetration impossible because only the super corporations can afford the process. The medical industry is generally like this,
This article kinda just glosses over any causes of lobbying, and then complains about the symptoms.

There is one incredibly interesting video I have seen which lays out a major root cause of corruption in the US, and the rise of lobbying and corruption since the 1970s.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gEz__sMVaY
(Cardboard Box Reform)

It is long, but well-reasoned and supported by a lot of evidence. Definitely worth a watch...
I have been through some of your material and it has been a joy to read.
But the House of Representatives balances that out...
I use the 0.8 series myself, and it does its job without making me pine for any particular improvements. As far as I can tell, there are occasional attempts at reviving development popping up every now and then, but none of them go far since the set of people who remain if you take out Ubuntu, GNOME 3 and KDE users (each of which has its own compositor) and then also remove all those who are using niche window managers for their minimalism and lower resource usage is very small.
Agreed. Caja and Pluma is awkward.
Any help is awesome is Mark! You've done a great job. It's more than decent list. Kudos!
Presently using it. Been using it for a couple years. I prefer it over all other desktops.
Its no huge surprise that spreadsheets implement a form of FRP . Specifically, you can look at loeb's function [1] as an example of the relation. Being able to focus on the data itself while easily composing operations is definitely functional in nature.

However, FP is not a silver bullet either. In practice I think humans care a bit less about correctness than compilers and would like some aspects of the language to be 'fuzzy' for lack of a better word. To most people "1" and 1 are the same thing so why shouldn't the compiler understand that. There could be potential for a dynamic-fp language of sorts.

[1] http://blog.sigfpe.com/2006/11/from-l-theorem-to-spreadsheet...
looks like you have to do it on your account management page. go here:

https://appleid.apple.com/

once you're logged in, go to the "security" section and hit the "edit" button.
I feel that at its core programming is about taking a conceptual idea (e.g. pac-man moving around a maze) and determining the unambiguous logic that describes it. The language used to express that description has a significant effect on the end result, but it's the ability to develop the logic in the first place that really separates "programmers" from "non-programmers".

"Non-programmer" isn't meant as a slight. This style of problem solving works great a significant portion of the time. Natural languages can describe a solution to a lot of problems very concisely because a) there's a lot of implicit context that clears up many of the potential ambiguities, and b) you're typically present and available to handle any unexpected situations that may arise. For many problems, the best solution is one that can be specified quickly, will work 90% of the time, and can be easily adjusted for most of the other 10% of the time. Natural languages and fuzzier thinking work great for this.

But this approach doesn't work well for problems where the solution is either too complex too be easily described using natural language, or situations where data sizes or time constraints make it unfeasible for you to be available to handle unexpected situations. In this case the solution requires all of the logic to be precise, unambiguous, and developed up front. It's a different way of thinking than what has typically been asked of humanity, and natural languages are pretty poor at expressing that logic.

I think the paper has some good points, but I'm not sure how much you can really draw from it other than verification that natural-style problem solving doesn't work well for the type of problems that are typically solved by programming. If you asked a bunch of experienced programmers to write programs that will tell you how to "go to the store and buy me some milk", you'd probably get similar results about how the programs didn't handle the many different unexpected situations that might occur in such a simple task.
I think it's a mixture of: what Microsoft went through with J++ (which is totally not what inspired C# cough) where they got sued for basically turning Java into Windows only, and what Google has gone through, which still makes me wonder with all their talents why they either don't invest in an entirely new language or find an alternative to Java that would be friendlier to be on their platform. I understand legacy apps and what not, but Oracle doesn't even want to help them out which could of been for their own benefit. Anyway, yeah... corporation owned programming languages...
Except different people do see totally different things when they watch the same film.

And looking at a painting can be a highly directed experience.

All of art is about the give and take of showing and allowing the viewer to see.
I assume you mean turn of 2 step verification.

See https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204152 and look near the bottom for "How do I turn off two-step verification?"
Not that you would have discovered the page without a hyperlink to it. Maybe, just maybe, that's what made the web great. ;-)
I am going to reproduce a relevant comment (not mine) from a discussion of this article at macrobusiness http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2016/04/weekend-links-16-17-....

"Part of the reason for neoliberalisms success is the lie (which Monbiot has repeated) that Keynesianism was proved wrong during the stagflation period of the 70’s and 80’s.
Keynesians like Tobin (who Samuelson called the greatest economist of his generation ie. better than Samuelson) were actually proved right. It the late 60’s early 70’s, before the oil shocks and fed easy money, they had already worked out an adjusted Phillips curve where inflation was a function of unemployment and lagged or entrenched inflation. Everything that happened from 1972 until today has vindicated this view. In the early 80’s inflation was brought down from an entrenched high rate, only through a dramatic increase in unemployment. And once it was reduced it stayed there, even while unemployment stayed high. This vindicated Tobin, and contradicted Friedman, who said inflation should keep falling as long as unemployment remained high (it didn’t). Likewise in the post 2008 world – Tobins Phillips curve has been spot on, high unemployment yet stable although very low inflation. Again Friedman proved wrong.
Keynesianism didn’t fail in the 70’s and 80’s. Economics failed, and has failed ever since. Unfortunately dimwitted journalists and liberal academics always need a black and white over simplified narrative of epoch changing events where one ideology replaces another. Keynesianism figured it out in 1933 and has been correct ever since."
We are $19.2TN in debt. Six percent of federal income is spent directly on interest on that debt, to the tune of $222BN annually. That money goes directly into the pockets of big banks, many of them foreign.

It sure would be nice if that could be spent differently! But unfortunately, we keep spending money we don't have!
The joys and perils of interactive development [video]