skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Even that is dangerous, because it means that an adversary who think they have inadvertently crossed a line will have every reason to go all out, because they'll expect a full scale retaliation.

Indicating a willingness to use nuclear weapons at all may also make an adversary more willing to believe you may deviate from policy and strike first, which again may lead them to believe an all out first strike is safer than holding back (e.g. I've mentioned Able Archer 83, where the Soviet leadership allegedly considered a first strike because they thought the US was planning one)

Part of the problem is that neither you nor the other side knows whether your opponent will stick to any given strategy, nor if they will behave rationally.
Building my vr dream machine, step 1 – CPU
> you can simply emit non-ssa form and QBE will fixup things for you

That's exactly what LLVM does though, except the "non-SSA form" involves loads/stores to alloca'd values. The difference is that in LLVM, the language is always in SSA form, it just has some reads / writes to memory that can be pruned, while QBE alternates between being an SSA language and not an SSA language.

LLVM also doesn't "make" you use stack slots. If you wanted to, you could emit fully pruned programs as LLVM IR. Using allocas for variables is a choice that clang makes.
Sometimes when teaching, repetition of examples to drive the point is key so it makes sense that for a vulgarization article, the same author takes time to get to the point while for an academic paper, he gets directly to the point...

And this is why I was bored out of my mind in school as a kid.

Thanks for the name of the academic paper, I'll spend some time reading it.
How does this compare to RISC-V?
Microsoft Translator for Android now lets you translate words in photos
Yes, donate to charity. But don't publicly congratulate yourself.

Yes, and this is the concept I take issue with. If Bill Gates's continued public dialogue over his charitable actions convinces other billionaires to join the cause, how is that anything other than a net positive? He may yet succeed in wiping out malaria when he might not have succeeded had he kept quiet.

The goal of any charitable act should be to make your charity obsolete. Quiet, private giving in small amounts without a coordinated plan does not accomplish that. It merely serves to feed somebody for another day.
The google trick doesn't work anymore anyway. They got wise. Usually someone posts a pastebin with the content.
It might be interesting to use the clang frontend and modify it to emit QBE instead of LLVM. I believe Visual Studio and ICC do that.
A wild idea would be to get a couple of top level talent together and let them play against DeepCraft for the first time, at the same time.
React prototyping command-line tool
Two simple suggestions:

The author mentioned reading in files with x "number of lines". If they are then parsing the lines into some structured format, there are likely many opportunities to look for low cardinality aspects and to reduce object tenuring by pooling strings using either String.intern or a hashset.

They should also consider increasing the eden size.
Any benchmarks of compile times vs other compilers?
> I've recently read Ender's Game and there was an interesting idea in there. In the book it is hive queens controlling the Buggers fleet with exquisite control, yet Ender is able to exploit this as a weakness, as every human is a sentient being capable of thinking and acting independently, so as a commander he was only giving high-level orders to his lieutenants and they did the rest. Which is how humans have fought wars.

I've read enough about real-world military strategy on Quora to know that this is nonsense. The amount of national resources that go into command and control networks is immense, these networks play a huge role in making our military unassailable. Something like the Bugger hive queens would be practically impossible to deal with in any real way, deception would be impossible to rely on.

Deception is critical in an invasion, defenders have the advantage of knowing the terrain. If you could rely on a sensor network to reliably and instantaneously tell you where all the threats are, then you could simply rely on mobile forces to go wherever they're needed. Unless the attackers have an overwhelming numerical advantage, they won't be able to break through.

D-Day would not have been feasible without the ability to deceive the Germans as to which beaches they were going to land the troops, a lot of time and effort went into planning that deception.

Humans only stood a chance against the buggers due to their overwhelming weaponry, which will trump tactics and strategy every time. No way with that kind of weaponry would it even be a fair fight, any mildly competent general could have won with that advantage. The defensive response to overwhelming conventional superiority is guerrilla warfare, not trying to stand and fight toe-to-toe with nukes.

Felt like a bit of a cop-out to me, authors should be required to spend some time on Quora verifying their basic assumptions, it would make for much better stories. Naturally Card didn't have access to it, and I still enjoyed the book. But it could have been much much better.
All Indic users can no longer see their fonts in Ubuntu
The Top 5 Natural Bodybuilders in the World
What constitutes a "good return" on research dollars spent? Is it mere value created? Or a breakthrough in fundamental human understanding? I'm actually quite intrigued now to mine some real data!
Worse than any since Kennedy, but to a purpose: the end of the Soviet Union, which he actually achieved. Kennedy blundered into his crises by projecting weakness, and being worse than weak in the Bay of Pigs invasion, Reagan at least was making a calculated gamble that paid off, when few thought the inevitable end of the Soviet Union could be a fraction as peaceful as it was.

And I noticed no "new course" on his part, your claim elsewhere in this discussion that it made "him determined to sit down with the Soviet leadership" is not supported by my memory. He was certainly willing to "sit down with" them, he just wasn't willing to surrender even more to them. The accession of Gorbachev to was almost certainly a more significant factor (then again, maybe Gorbachev's hand was strengthed by Able Archer 83 et. al.), and note for example the much hyped "failure" at Reykjavík following the earlier one in Geneva.
I think it's the best equivalent to an Apple TV in the Android ecosystem. Great performance and 4k, but way less apps (notably no Amazon Prime TV app).

If you're into cord cutting they do have an app for Sling streaming cable service.

Chromecasting to it is straightforward, and on par with Airplay. That was the one thing holding me to iOS for a long time.
FF.com Acquired by Faraday Future
> Hopefully people will stop submitting these sooner rather than later...

I dearly hope that they don't. This is valuable content and we shouldn't penalize it just because you're too lazy to click a single additional time.

There's literally a "web" link you can click on HN to pre-populate the Google query for you. How can you possible object to that?

I have to assume you simply have an ideological opposition to writers being paid and thus oppose the inclusion of quality content on HN.
Ask HN: What is your favorite dystopian novel and why?
I can't explain why but for some reason those books are those I can't put down until finished.

I love Asimoov and Huxley's work but while Brave New World has some background incoherence, 1984 is still my favorite depiction of a bad future.

I wouldn't say a I have a favorite dystopia genre, but Orwell and Gibson novels are those I have appreciated the most.

What's yours?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11474613
Yesterday I was reading something about how children think without words, because they hardly know any word yet.

I mulled over that for a bit, and concluded that we all think without words in fact. The thought comes first, then it's translated into words inside our minds. It should be obvious that the brain can only form words after it's formed the thought.

So in your case, I find it impossible to believe that you don't have imagination. I think it might just be inaccessible to you (to your consciousness).

I think most thoughts are in fact unconscious. What we consciously perceive of our own thoughts is just a small part of it, the high level output.

So I'm thinking that for you, the "consciousness barrier" so to speak is just a little higher than it is for most people.
Title is pretty link-baity (not the submitter's fault... it's the actual article title).

It makes it sound like Amazon is at fault, but it seems pretty clear it's a third-party who is merely renting cloud space from Amazon.
Is there anything inherent to Python3 that is slower than Python2? Or is it just some of the performant packages still have not been ported to Python3?
Playing with llbuild core in swift
it's been a really, really, long time since i've read something about computers and been completely and utterly baffled by what i saw.

thanks for making me feel young again.
Yeah the takeaway is that you have to prep. As bad as that is, it is a solvable well contained problem.
See the logs he posted

[Full GC

[PSYoungGen: 10752K->9707K(142848K)]

[ParOldGen: 232384K->232244K(485888K)] 243136K->241951K(628736K)

[PSPermGen: 3162K->3161K(21504K)],

1,5265450 secs

]

-> parallel old

A full GC frees 140k of old 1045k of young memory. He's almost running out of memory with parallel old. He needs to run a way larger heap. G1 isn't going to be any better with a live set the size he has in combination with his max heap.

All this explained in Java Performance [1]
http://www.amazon.com/Java-Performance-Charlie-Hunt/dp/01371...
I just tried it and it seemed to work for me.
Bill Gates also visited the country shortly after Ballmer's visit and after the contract had been signed. Yes, Bill Gates is to blame, among many others.

> You have a lot of misplaced anger.

I'm angered by many other things some of which I have control over, economic colonialism (like it happened in this case) I have no control over so no reason to be angered about. Just wanted to add a different perspective to things.
Create a paste from your terminal
Nationalism != tribalism. Nationalism exploits tribalism, in the way that casinos exploit other natural cognitive disabilities. That does not doom all of us to losing our savings at the casino. In fact gambling has a much longer history than nationalism. 20th c. nationalism is a johnny-come-lately, like video poker machines, and could be a passing fad.
These work on modern systems:
https://github.com/mcuelenaere/fsv
https://github.com/3dfsb-dev/3dfsb
Works for me.. have you tried it in incognito mode?
>sure, /earthporn/ is neat, but forums dedicated to just reposting pictures, are just another wasteful time sink for me.

You could say the same thing about a lot of things, including playing video games, posting here on HN, spending time with your family or kids, or anything else that doesn't directly make money.

If someone enjoys it, it's not a "wasteful time sink" any more than playing a crossword puzzle or watching a movie with your spouse.

>However if it is an /r/ for anything significantly popular, it quickly divulges it toxic garbage.

I disagree; /r/earthporn is significantly popular, and /r/aww is extremely popular. They aren't full of toxic garbage. When it's just pictures of cute cats, it's pretty hard to have a serious argument.

More focused groups, like the one for my car, aren't nearly as popular, but not everyone has the same interests, so of course a particular car-based subreddit isn't going to be nearly as popular as something that affects everyone, such as /r/politics.

Politics is especially bad because it literally affects everyone (there's no one now who doesn't live under some government), frequently in a rather profound way (the laws that are passed will directly affect your livelihood, and could put you in jail or get you killed), and our leaders are mostly a bunch of sociopathic, corrupt, evil people, and on top of all that, none of us (assuming you're an American, as /r/politics caters to American politics) can remotely agree on how our country should be governed (some people want outright communism, others want corporate fascism, others want democratic socialism, others want a theocracy, others want near-anarchy).

So in summary, if you want to avoid "toxic garbage", it's pretty simple: find a forum that's full of very like-minded people, and avoid anything that delves into politics. Or if you want to talk about politics but avoid nasty arguments, make sure to find something close to an echo chamber for your preferred candidate/party/orientation.
Absolutely excellent article. I always keep C++ at the back of my mind in case I need it some day, so I think the list of libraries they used will be useful for me in the future. Thanks.
Well, since we're talking about 16 bit software ...

In 1991, my company was sandboxing commercial software. This was for try-before-you-buy. Except, instead of recompiling a crippled version, we would take a retail SKU, encipher the executables and then deliver with a device driver: a VxD. The VxD would hook the low level Int13 IO calls to pass all disk IO through a write-through cache. The installed app could read from anywhere on the disk. But, all attempts to write would copy the changed sectors to the cache. This would allow a perfect uninstall; simply remove the cache and the disk reverts back to its preinstalled state. This was because most software, back in 1991, assumed that you'd never want to uninstall. So, it would scatter its junk all over the place.

Now imagine if the VxD was part of the OS. Any downloaded exe could access the HD, but all writes would write-through to a separate cache. That was 25 years ago. This is a roundabout way of asking: how feasible is sandboxing to avoid malware?
TaekBangLeeSsang vs DeepCraft. I'd watch the hell out of that.

http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/TaekBangLeeSsang
Estimating the time spent on a project with git-pandas
I can remember when Git began to replace Subversion, but a lot of companies resisted the trend, because Git was so radically different. Subversion was comfortable: everything was centralized, and the revision numbers went up in an orderly fashion: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6... You always knew where you were in history, with Subversion. It was clear that Git was better in some fundamental way, and yet it took effort to understand it, conceptually, at first.

I feel like the same thing is happening now with GraphQL versus REST. On some level it seems like GraphQL is altogether better than REST, but we don't see a mad rush to adopt GraphQL, because it represents a big shift in thinking, and those of us who just spent the last 10 years creating RESTful interfaces, we are a bit slow to throw out all of our work and start over with GraphQL. Also, the frontend needs to change as much as the backend, so it requires a full re-write of everything.

All the same, a title like "Scale vs. Node.js as a RESTful back end server" does strike me as an anachronism in 2016. Who cares? I doubt I will ever again build a RESTful interface. Rather, on the project I'm working on right now, we are getting rid of the RESTful interface and we are looking at our GraphQL options:

https://github.com/chentsulin/awesome-graphql

Is Scala or Node.js the best option for building a GraphQL server? That would be an interesting article.
No. I even said what the analogy would be for self driving cars. I'm calling out the BS of the marketing scams for investment dollars that are these contests. Point out that and a bunch of people get butt hurt because they need that investment money.
The media give the people what they want.
I think the extra load/stores clutter the IL.

Also, QBE does not really "alternate" SSA/non-SSA, SSA form is built once at the beginning of the compilation pipeline and preserved later.

I don't understand what you mean by "fully pruned programs". Maybe you want to refer to pruned SSA form. And then, here is my point: with LLVM, either you build SSA yourself or you use allocas. QBE offers a convenient third option.
That's awesome. I hear a lot here in Canada (as a foreigner here) about the efforts they made decades ago to build an educated workforce for the information economy and a local tech industry. It did great things here and I have to imagine it's great for Pakistan. There are strong engineers and digital artists coming from Pakistan, and in the long term they should be able to stay and have a great career at home.
Flash is playing Broodwar and this is about Broodwar, not Starcraft 2.
I still agree that the level of competition will be even lower by the time a proper bot will be ready (which will take a lot of years).
The "cut open an innocent's chest" "thought experiment" is what I'm talking about, but with the changing of the original URL to one that doesn't focus or start with it, this whole thread and many others makes much less if any sense.

And I for one didn't call him that, it was people like those making up such things who called him that and much worse. Although I'll admit I've found "Nobel Peace Prize Winner Obama" to be funny ever since it happened, it will be such forever.
Yeah, he will pay taxes on the vested illiquid RSUs on top of his 130k.
> Am I missing something? What's so amazing about this?

The article is not about testing performance of a web server, but showcasing performance differences between synchronous and asynchronous code using asyncio. So, not about serving requests, but consuming.
the only thing protecting him still
The discussion of whether or not we have free will strikes me as confused. Aaronson suggests that we would clearly not have free will in a scenario where “Everything [we] did could be fully traced to causal antecedents external to [us], plus pure randomness—not in some philosophical imagination, but for real, and on a routine basis”. The caveat “external to [us]” is doing a lot of work here, but it really has no discernible meaning. (Is a cause “external to us” if it’s not within our brains? Why would that matter? What is the status of chains of causation that lead from the outside world to goings on in our brains?) Without that essentially meaningless caveat, the statement is simply a trivially true disjunction of the logical possibilities given physicalism. Of course, if physicalism is true, then everything that we do is either determined by the laws of physics or not determined by anything. If that entails that we don’t have free will, then Aaronson should just say that he thinks physicalism is true and that he thinks that physicalism entails the absence of free will. On the other hand, if we don’t simply assume physicalism, then the fact that our behavior is determined by the laws of physics really does nothing to argue against free will. Everything would hang on how minds interact with physical reality, and we simply know nothing about how that might work. For example, it might be that God ensures that the physical world operates so as to respect the free decisions made by our minds. Or it might be that phenomena which are random from the point of view of physics are (sometimes) linked to free decisions made by minds. Nothing is known, so nothing can be concluded.

I'd also have to say that Aaronson lacks imagination in a crucial respect. He claims that in any "imaginable" universe it will hold that "if you knew the complete state of the universe, you could use it to calculate [either deterministically or probabilistically] everything I’d do in the future." But of course it's very easy to imagine a universe where this is not the case. E.g., any universe where minds make free decisions that lack physical causes. We know that people have in fact imagined this sort of universe.
That reminds me of a tangentially related thing I experienced. I never had a problem with left/right until I heard someone explaining the "hold your thumb out, if it makes an L that is left" 'trick'. Before hearing about that, left and right came naturally, and I 'just knew' which was which. After hearing it, I constantly second guess myself, and there is a brief (but noticeable) hesitance before I can say "Ok, that's left".
I keep a 5.25" drive and interface card in a plastic bag... just in case. Last time it was used was about 7yrs ago to migrate a friends data forward. Old skool for sure!
My website will not be adopting HTTP/2.
Can't say I'm sympathetic to publishers. They've been rorting the system for a long time now.

When publisher substantial fund research more than government, I might start feeling differently. Of course, that will never happen as they couldn't make money.

I really would like to know - what do publishers actually do that couldn't be done on a more open system? And why can't Universities manage the peer review system?
None of the results on the first page of google contain more than the first few sentences of the article. I think I got the gist of the article from those two sentences, but it is kind of annoying to not have the details or nuance that I'm sure is present in the rest of the article.

Given the number of WSJ articles I've seen recently, I am getting suspicious that one of the following is happening:

1. A lot of HNers upvoting articles without reading them

2. HNers are getting past the paywall (illegally)

3. The WSJ staff is upvoting their own articles to get a page view boost (and thus a few more ad dollars)

Of course, there could just be more people on HN that pay for the WSJ than I thought.
Something I've noticed, which the article doesn't quite say (but sure hints at): you can accidentally teach yourself performance-degrading "techniques" if you keep practicing beyond a certain point.

I used to study (modern) drums 5+ hours a day. This would happen sometimes, around the time when I was learning a new technique: I'd start on the new material, practice it for a while, then I'd get it to a so-so point and I'd stall there making the same mistake over and over again. At that point I would have to stop and play something else and only come back to the new material the next day, otherwise it would take me weeks to get past the plateau.

The thing is, I think, when you practice, your body (or, I guess, your mind) doesn't know what you're learning- whether it's good or bad. Maybe for dancers or athletes there is some physical feedback, some pain from doing the wrong thing, but for many other types of performance there isn't and so it's very easy to just practice the wrong thing and learn it really, really well.
[Discussion] State/Direction of C# as a High-Performance Language
I don't really see the problem with making this asymmetrical. The security implications of a frame navigating its parent and a parent navigating its child frame seem very clearly different to my mind.

If you're suggesting it would be technically difficult, I'm extremely skeptical of that. The origin's relationship to the target frame should not be impossible to discern, and I'd be a little shocked if it isn't taken into account elsewhere.
>then I got disappointed with the overall direction the language design was going.

Can you elaborate? Thanks.
It's high quality unique journalism, I hope people don't stop submitting their links. If a story is available elsewhere then by all means, but a WSJ exclusive story is definitely worth linking to.
simple reason - there is NO framework that is built ground up for nodejs style async programming.

Obviously there is Twisted and Tornado - but gevent or asyncio are actually the paradigms that people are using now. If there were a Flask like framework that was ground up built to leverage async (rather than bolting it on) and included all the batteries for web development.. then python would have a serious edge over node.
Studio 360 – The pioneers who are making the first virtual-reality narratives
I wonder what Bush would think about "These days the American make good villains", spoken by gangsters (circa 2010).