skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Expected to see you here. Hey, send me an email or something so I can send you interesting stuff without hunting your profile or random comments on HN. Address in my profile. Here's the one I was saving for you to complement the ML and Haskell CPU's I linked.

https://www.info.ucl.ac.be/~pvr/bam_jlp.ps

Cool stuff, eh? That they keep it close to a regular, RISC processor means optimizations of that should carry over. Unlike stuff like Fifth Generation that tried to go way, way the hell to far with Prolog hardware. ;) Should fit nicely into my concept of general-purpose CPU's with purpose-built coprocessors. Also speculate techniques might be helpful on ASIC's meant for today's big-data apps that use things like Datalog for queries. Ya think?
How Friendships Change in Adulthood and Over Time
Compilers are way too overzealous eliminating code because of undefined behavior. Legally it is allowed and I'm sure it helps in synthetic benchmarks. But writers of real programs won't be impressed of the perf gains when you stop running half their program.
I was gonna say, having heard a gunshot as well as the other stated things that could sound like gunshots, I think gunshots are categorically louder and more identifiable. That said, I'm not a gun expert so I could be wrong for different types of guns, etc.
If vendors could make money selling Linux machines, they would have. Like I said, it wasn't hard to get into that business. Even a niche business can be very profitable if it is not served by the rest of the industry.
> You might be able to get one or two people to do something, but it'll probably mean some sort of sanitized commercial experience

Well perhaps people would hang around at a bus stop or street corner and just chat bollocks but it's occupied by 16-year olds.. ;)
I think that ship has sailed. Drew selling out now would be a crush to his ego especially he rejected Steve Jobs. I also doubt Apple would pay their asking price.
Reading the linked post makes me wonder if some people use the most obscure parts of Ruby as a sort of shibboleth
DIY: Use Instagram data to plan your next vacation
No, it doesn't, if I understand the OPs claim correctly.

I agree with you that, for large enough n, using O(n) steps in the recursion will be slower than doing O(log n) matrix multiplication steps. The addition chain improves on the binary approach for some values of n, but I don't think it can go below O(log n) because the binary method is fastest for all n that are powers of two (disclaimer: I know almost nothing of addition chains besides what I learned from TAOCP).

And of course, finding the fastest addition chain doesn't come cheaply, either, if P != NP.

Hm, maybe I understand the OP's claim: if you want to generate the first n items in the series, the recursive formula will be hard to beat. Even then, it may not be fastest on modern CPUs. https://oeis.org/A000045 gives

F(n + 12) = 18F(n + 6) - F(n)

So, six completely independent threads can each compute a sixth of the sequence. Doing that may be faster than trying to paralllelize the bignum additions.
"extremely smart people" also caused the 2007 mortgage crisis, and 2000 tech bubble
The issue that stonecraftwolf is raising regarding the platform is not at all unreasonable. I think there is a change that I could make that would allow users to leave a group with people they know they don't want to be in with before those people are notified that they've joined. So I'm going to be making that change and I think it will make Krewe better.
Greater Delhi is entirely in Pakistan covering Islamabad and Lahore. Before any one picking pitchforks or tactical nuclear weapons, they should correct that in that map.
They'll run out of liquidity long before driverless cars go mainstream. There are huge legal and logistical hurdles to face.
> clever tricks and hacks defeat the purpose.

There is nothing wrong with clever tricks (would you dismiss HAKMEM?), as long as they follow from simple principles that can be applied systematically. Alas, everything is ad-hoc in Ruby-land.
> The more telling number about gun violence might be “shots fired.” And now, thanks to broader adoption of new technologies, it is getting easier to show just how common gun violence is in America.

I happened to be working with a dispatcher in a 9-11 call center on the night the bin Laden raid was announced. Over the course of a couple hours, we fielded hundreds of "shots fired" calls, which mostly turned out to be people lighting off fireworks (sure, there were probably a few drunks firing into the air, but that's more reckless than violent).

If "gun violence" had been measured by these reports, the raw stats would suggest that the entire city had spontaneously erupted into a warzone, and then spontaneously returned to normal, all for no reason and without a single injury or death.

My point is that the author is advocating collecting statistics in a way that equates gang shootouts and backfiring cars as equal incidents of gun violence. The system is guaranteed to generate lots false positives, which will be used to bolster support for more surveillance and gun control. Not only is it _not_ a better way to measure gun violence, it's a proposition so fundamentally flawed that it borders on insanity.
Drones fired more weapons than conventional warplanes for first time last year
> It this supported anywhere?

I've seen it in place at the Chaos Communication Congress in 2014, I used it with a couple of clients without issues. Not sure what was used or how much effort the configuration was.
I find it tiresome that it becomes hard to just have friends over. Have to negotiate a time, clean the house, get food, and if you're going to a friend's house you're expected to "bring something", etc. Sigh.
This article totally misses the point of Coral Castle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecKc33XgB0M

http://www.coralcastlecode.com/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQqCMe_37P0
Google has about 1.5 million miles of driverless driving. Tesla can get a few hundred thousand cars to test their software and achieve 10x the miles.
I have to be honest. I'm seriously doubting that math you didn't do. In my experience GPS murders small batteries. And putting large batteries on bikes seems like a nonstarter for bikes that aren't electric assist.
Day Dreaming of a Living Wage Grand Compromise
This is is more 'The science of losing friends' with unscientific advice on gaining them.

I would be interested in science of making them.

Or even a more analytical approach other than kinda obvious stuff.
> When I think about it more, most of my good friends come from my musical circles, not my engineering/technical ones

Weird, I've had similar luck. My best friends in high school were all music buddies, and I felt closer to them than any of my friends (both technical or otherwise) I've made since then. Makes me want to move somewhere with a better music scene!
> Most public transport subsidies go to the capital

Most public transport revenue also comes from the capital. While literally millions of London's commuters pay thousands of dollars a year each for the privilege of being herded into overfilled cattle cars twice a day, Welsh/Scots/Northerners don't actually use the public transport they demand and hence it runs at a massive loss until it inevitably gets shutdown yet again.
> I am generally supportive of this, though, if it masks enough underlying complexity.

In general, anything that makes the static structure of your program less discernible to whoever has to read it, can be considered technical debt. If you find yourself doing lots of dynamic metaprogramming, chances are you need to rethink your application's architecture.
Clickbait headline...

My brother, father and grandfather were (between 1955 and 2006) the principals of what became the largest water well drilling company in Nevada. I worked there during while a teen and between semesters at college.) I was just there last week, for my father's 80th birthday, and dealing with the last dredges of that company (rebuilding a drilling rig that I had to repo, so it can be sold.)

I'm well-acquainted with DRI, or at least what it was during the 80s.

Las Vegas will never be the "Silicon Valley of water".
A Medley of Visually Deceptive Prints
So like football, you can gird your loins so that your loins can be exploded by even harder impact. This is insanity.

The only way to make "fighting sports" safe is to ban hits to damage-prone areas of the body. But the organizing body's in those sports are unwilling to go far enough - apparently we want, nay, _need_ to see blood, spit, injury and yes, death in our "fighting sports".
Your tone of the comment is turning people off, but essentially you are right. I only read the "Concord" gem part. I would consider this as an unnecessary abstraction that only obscures the code more. I wish people would strive to write more dumb and straight forward code more. This is especially true if you are writing code in a team setting.
Can you explain what you mean by "it simply gives the author's a narrative to fake"?

At the very least, pre-registration helps guard against the "file-drawer" effect, where a negative result simply goes in the trash, and no one ever knows it occurred.

If you mean that pre-registration will not prevent jiggling the results until the researcher gets a significant p-value, then I agree that many forms of pre-registration which lack registration of the analysis and so on will allow the authors to fake the narrative.
I guess I'm a little unclear about your argument here. You used the term "big bang" rewrite, but you're describing incremental rewrite.
While Las Vegas translates as "The Meadows", it was never "an oasis".

There were artesian springs which served as a watering stop for wagon trains, and later the railroad.

But most of the valley is dry to the point of being parched.
Instead of putting in high speed trains which are 30 year old technologies, they should just put in Hyperloop.
The compiler is the implementation; it cannot cause "undefined behavior".

What it can be is "nonconforming".

A correct program which hits that situation continues to have well-defined behavior (which we know from the text of the program and the standard). Just the implementation isn't handling the requirements correctly; it is not conforming.

An implementation is not bound by the standard in its own use of the standard library functions. The implementation can use a function like memcpy in ways that would be formally undefined if they occured in user code; its implementation of memcpy just has to harmonize with that use, so that the intended behavior is ensured.
This is because implementations can add their own requirements to areas that the standard leaves undefined. For instance, an implementation can add the requirement to its memcpy that the copy may overlap, if the destination has a lower address. Then, the implementation can generate code which uses memcpy that way, or make internal uses of memcpy from other library functions which use it that way. It's just using its own (possibly not publicly documented) extension.
The question is more why do we treat assault and homicide where a firearm is involved differently from other instances of assault and homicide? Dead is dead, no matter the manner in which it happened.
Yet another of these superficial articles that is equating quality and quantity. This obsession with "how many" because it is easily measured is the same thinking that leads people to pump up their Facebook friend count.

OKCupid used to make the same mistake in their blog entries analyzing their message traffic. An ad that gets more responses must be better, right? Well, no. Getting one response from the right person is better than twenty responses that you are completely uninterested in.
My big question: how do you deal with community leadership and moderation? Is the first person to create a particular community that community's dictator for life? How can large communities, with populations larger than many nations, achieve practical, representative, and accountable self-governance?
The article says electric aircraft holding 50 people in 50 years. Granted, not pure solar aircraft but electric.

50x the power takes 50x the surface area and 7.1x the length / width. Or less than that with a lifting body approach. Or significantly less than that if it's daytime only.
Sure, I'm not making a value judgement, just stating how it is.

In my opinion, it makes a lot of sense to do that anyway, at least viewed from outer space.

Stepping away from 'the economy', London's public transport system is used because it's the only option. The roads are at capacity. I say this having driven basically every possible route in rush hour. They are full. I'm often surprised that we don't literally end up having gridlock and just all getting stuck forever.

A metro system in my small northern hometown would be pointless because there's hardly any road traffic so everyone just jumps in their car and has their nice personal space.

I find this quite interesting. Public transport has to be a better option for a critical mass to use it. This can happen either by it being much better (quicker), or by the alternatives simply ceasing to work.
And that is why in Open Source, even users that contribute absolutely nothing to the project do have a value to the community
You have to use a decent acoustic model - not the one in the demo. If you do I think it works 'pretty well' as a proof of concept. That said I'm not recommending Sphinx as a recognition framework, it is way behind the times in 2016, but this is the only 'in the wild' demo of this I've seen on the web, so I felt it was worth mentioning.
Do a weekly (or monthly) dinner. They key is consistency (OK an informality: byob, bring something you like, open invite instead of rsvps, etc).
I don't think all pointers are twice as big. How does Java do compressed OOPS?
54 Venture Firms that do CPG investments
U.S. Directs Cyberweapons at ISIS for First Time
> it is surprising to see Clang developers (I presume) on the bug being so blasé about introducing undefined behavior themselves.

I have suddenly lost a great deal of respect and confidence for LLVM/Clang after reading this bug thread; I value software reliability above all else, and being able to write reliable software without the compiler negating that effort. It seems I can no longer be assured this is even a priority of my compiler any more, with Clang. All the more reason to switch to Rust I suppose.

That the Clang people are trying to deflect this bug as "fine, no fix necessary" is kind of disgusting software engineering behavior. Compilers spontaneously introducing undefined behavior in another layer (to the point of causing codegen warnings from perfectly correct C code, is as clearly cut a BUG as any, independent of current API implementations outside of the ISO spec.

If you want to make undefined API calls the norm, then make a new API where the behavior you want is defined. Invoking undefined behavior of a decoupled library that users can swap out is flat out indefensible.

That they are reluctant to fix this makes me shy away from ever using Clang/LLVM, which is sad because before I had always held them with very high respect.
The comment was marked as "dupe" but I don't see why so I vouch it. Is it a bug ?
Hmm, why won't it? Maybe in the past when asprintf and malloc were located in the same dylib, since OS X dylibs generate direct calls to other public functions in the same image (rather than going through the PLT as GNU does by default), but for many years /usr/lib/libSystem.B.dylib has been split into several reexported libraries in /usr/lib/system, so there shouldn't be an issue there. Probably better to use this technique though (should still work in the latest version but needs mprotect):

http://eatmyrandom.blogspot.com/2010/03/mallocfree-intercept...
I wouldn't call it “abstraction”, a term that I reserve for things that hide their implementation details well. (Litmus test: if you use the abstraction wrong, will the error message show you any implementation details?) Rather, it's boilerplate generation - basically a dynamic counterpart to Lisp macros.

Also, I see nothing wrong with the tone of the comment.
The compiler has different layers. Layer X is nonconforming, which causes undefined behavior in layer M.

Layer M's memcpy doesn't have to have the same semantics as the C standard's memcpy, but the bug report implies that it does.
Rather, they are getting zealous in eliminating code because of the assumption that there is no undefined behavior. The scope of what undefined behaviors do this is increasing and that breaks programs that make some assumptions on traditional compiler behavior, or that have hidden bugs.

I believe that C should have safer semantics, plus standard-defined modes of operation which restore the unsafe semantics selectively.

The optimizer then must obey whichever semantics in effect (safer or less safe).

Then, in addition to telling your compiler you want a certain optimization level, you could tell it which standard-defined modes of operation you would like.

Currently, this is already de facto the case outside of the standard. For instance, users of GCC who want to do certain pointer aliasing without unpredictable behavior tell the compiler to be in a mode in which that is allowed (effectively an altered C dialect) using -fno-strict-aliasing.

This kind of thing should be a standard, portable feature. Look, everywhere in this program, I want nice left-to-right evaluation within all expressions and among initializers and function arguments. Except in super-fast.c; when compiling super-fast.c to super-fast.o, please do it in a mode where unspecified-evaluation-order semantics applies and optimize accordingly. (I might even want this on a more finer-grained scale than translation units.)

We need safety, and we need to sometimes throw away safe semantics in exchange for better speed (whereby we still ensure that the code we are writing is correct with regard to the weakened semantics; i.e. we promise to the compiler that even if it relaxes the evaluation order, or whatever, we know what we are doing and everything is cool).

It would be good to do this without compiler-specific guesswork.

Optimization control alone over a language with a single set of semantics (which is largely unsafe) is a bad way to achieve this.
Except in this case, the proof that you've cured cancer (and that you had cancer in the first place) comes from a non-reputable lab (SpectraCell), doing a telomere length test which has not been documented in the literature. It's even on Quackwatch's list of labs doing "Dubious diagnostics tests".
Southern Nevada has some very large solar energy projects.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_Neva...

Problem is, the plants that generate steam need quite a bit of water.
Are you saying that Clang guarantees its own memcpy implementation will be used? I don't know; but it seems odd that if this is fully intended that the compiler/linker would generate warnings from its own handling of perfectly valid C code (as shown in the bug).
Yes, if "undefined behavior" doesn't just mean "a situation where the ISO language standard doesn't impose a requirement", but has a broader meaning like "behavior not defined by anyone at all".
Μάχη για την δεύτερη θέση
A universal way of deploying orchestrated containers
>Guess I should have said "blocking I/O"? I thought it was a given that a single threaded language wouldn't magically inject some kind of concurrency around tight loops or CPU intensive tasks.

Well, Erlang (and Elixir) does just that -- it's preemptive, and implicitly yields under the covers even in loops.

>Node.js people don't really think that sort of thing is "non blocking", do they?

Judging from forum threads and blog posts, a lot of them do, especially web programmers not familiar with blocking and non-blocking that only know that "Node is webscale".
Please forward these results to Ms. Holmes c/o Theranos.
Also a great library for onboarding purposes is Hopscotch [1]. It is allows you to create a interactive tour through the UI.

We are using it to introduce new users when launching the webapp the first time (Because having a 100% intuitive UI is a hard thing). We also made a study which showed us that using a onboarding mechansim really helps the user to get started and does not scare them away (which was a concern of some people).

[1] https://github.com/linkedin/hopscotch
An overaggressive pattern recognizer coupled with an overaggressive double-checker (something that pattern matches for incorrect results) is still a stronger system than the overaggressive pattern matcher alone. And depending on the shape of the data, it can be far more effective than a single statistically correct pattern recognizer. There's an interesting bit of math here that I'm not sure has been laid out in any accessible fashion yet, but I'd have to check around a bit.

The human brain more or less works because of this - it overtrains on every signal it takes in, recognizing patterns that it has no statistical justification to pick out. But since it's simultaneously (over)training the process of rejecting those false patterns, it all works out okay, and it's actually far more effective than if it only made "proper" inferences from the data coming in, at least in the world we live in.
Hi, LLVM and Clang developer here.

I don't see anyone being blasé about this. The issue comes down to something really simple:

- The compiler can emit substantially simpler code if it has a guarantee from the platform's implementation of memcpy.

- The compiler authors thought they had such a guarantee and so chose to leverage it.

Now, maybe they don't have that guarantee on all platforms. If that's the case, its flat out and simply a bug in the compiler. And you'll find folks on that bug arguing that it doesn't actually hold, which is good and important.

But it's actually quite reasonable to have a guarantee from a platform's libc that this will work and leverage that. The compiler isn't generating C code or code bound by any standard. This is about two parts of the implementation of C agreeing about what internal invariants will hold.

The problem this bug highlights (and it is a real problem, and not one anyone takes lightly) is that we have insufficient agreement about these invariants, both for certain platforms (glibc) and even within LLVM. Fixing this remains absolutely critical, but may only involve documenting the agreement.
Also, should we use /dev/urandom (on the host) to seed the CSPRNG in virtual machines? https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2016-04/thread...
That's a very insightful thought.

I do find it interesting how people are coming to the idea that local governments are where new ideas are formed, but degrade the concepts of States' rights or smaller federal intervention as racism whenever it doesn't suit a liberal agenda.
Here is a nice write-up on how 802.11x security was provided to attendees at 32C3 (they used TTLS with no client certs and users could choose their own user/passwords anonymously)

http://mobilesociety.typepad.com/mobile_life/2016/01/wifi-ce...
His opinion is interesting, and leads to the question: Why shouldn't apple start a services division, with it's own process, managers and internal profit and loss, but that would have somewhat limited independence, by definition - in major decisions they would have to consult the CEO and the other divisions to make sure this doesn't interfere with the hardware products.