skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I don't understand the purpose of `with`. If it's to help people deal with deeply nested or byzantine case-clause structures, then that seems weird to me.

Isn't the way to deal with that problem is to hoist those clauses into functions with different pattern signatures and rely on function-head matching?

Everything else looks awesome. I have to say, somewhat selfishly, that my favorite part of Elixir is actually the pressure it's putting on the Erlang community to up its game and care more about developer experience and enablement through better tooling, etc.
Building User Interfaces for domain objects
Yes, I will personally "start shooting people". Except I won't do anything so anodyne.

We gun owners know our 20th Century history.

Note we're talking about a nation wide gun registry, you're a criminal if all your guns are not listed on it.
This same thing bothered me, so I installed task warrior to try it out. It appears that "task list" actually has a side effect of re-numbering the IDs. So the example is actually correct behavior, but if you issue an extra "task list" command in between "task 1 done" and "task 2 done" then yes, you would the result you expected.

This (IMHO) terrible design is what will keep me away from task warrior.
There is no divorce lawyer making a $400k salary. If they make that much, they are entrepreneurs. There are plenty of PhD entrepreneurs who make millions a year. Compare apples to apples.
Aren't the majority of Earth's species also extinct? What's surprising in the idea that extraterrestrial civilizations follow the same pattern? That's just how things work out after billions of years.
> the NRA actually represents the business interests of people who manufacture and sell firearms

NRA member here.

I neither manufacture nor sell firearms, and the NRA represents my interests re: gun ownership.
Good sir, please riddle us with tales of how you have discovered the serenity of "f-u" money.

The foundation of this community rests on lore of "f-u" money and we simply ask that you contribute to the lore that keeps this place alive....and that keeps this place....human.
This is probably a pedantic concern, but is pointing an "About" page to a twitter/linkedin/etc. link a new thing?

I'm hoping to learn something about not just who came up with the framework but who else is involved, what sparked the need, etc., but all I get right now is a link to what I presume is the developer's twitter page.
What a strange response to his post. Did some portion of your post get deleted/omitted?
> with no forms semantics forthcoming

Actually, €5MM grant has been given to some academics to produce a formal model of Rust over the next few years. So we'll see... A big part of it is also formalizing what unsafe means, which is the hard part.
The way it's written you could get life for "chipping" your car to increase the performance. Not just about self-driving cars.
There's an RFC being actively worked on that will make it easier to pass around unboxed closures.
A little over a week ago, HN pondered a question based on essentially the opposite premise: "Why do so many people continue to pursue doctorates?" [0]

The submission garnered some unbelievably sour comments about graduate research (the top comment, in particular).

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11543439
what's your evidence that gun violence is going up?
It's largely the same, the speed cube just replaces the stickers with plastic tiles. The internals are also tweaked to make it easier to spin and to make it resist "popping" where the cube would jettison some pieces if you were moving it too fast / hard.
The people currently mantaining udev do not want them to.

> Unless the systemd-haters prepare another
kdbus userspace until then this will effectively also mean that we will
not support non-systemd systems with udev anymore starting at that
point. Gentoo folks, this is your wakeup call.

https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2014-Ma...
when do you run things over when racing?
o12, b12, and x12 are all valid variable names
runit is a fine init application. it might actually be better than OpenRC (which most of, our[0] systems run). Void is a fantastic distribution made better by a sane choice in init systems, and if you visit for that reason, you'll stay for all the other good, sane, choices and community.

0. http://medicalcannab.is
Task Manager or Resource Monitor (which you can launch from Task Manager)? I see lots of per-process stuff in the latter but not the former.
> It's basically a certain kind of documentation of design patterns in programming languages.

PLT has become its own thing, and work in the area is not necessarily related to PL. If you scan current papers at POPL, you'll see a trend of applying language-oriented theory to problem X where X has nothing to do with implementing/designing a programming language.

We can apply theory to PL, but many of the factors in a PL design today (or yesterday) are not rooted in theory.

> But the kind of stuff you'll see in a book like Types and Programming Languages is super-different in approach from the kind of stuff you'd see in, say, the Gang of Four book, both of which are different again from Bret Victor's approach.

It is not even just the approach that is different, but the goals and outcomes.
While it's good to examine hidden assumptions---if you're on this site, you're probably an engineer, i.e. a knowledge worker, i.e. an occupant of a profession creation of which was made possible by the advent of large and complex (though perhaps not necessarily hierarchical, although they tend to be correlated) societies.
Living in Taiwan, married to a girl here. When going to visit their family in the sprawling between-cities urban area of Zhongli, the landmark for me to remember to turn off the main road to their house is the big building of a(?)/the(?) YKK factory. Big YKK lettering on the facade, and fills a few blocks. Was an interesting feeling seeing it for first time, instinctively checked which one of zippers was also marked with YKK at a time...
This, so much.

If I find a problem I can't solve I will post a question on Stack Overflow, then I go back to work trying to solve it. If I find the solution before someone else does I answer my own question on Stack Overflow.

My most updated answers have been to questions I asked in the first place.

I also get a chuckle when someone I know says they were googling a problem and found my post on Stack Overflow.
Our answer is equally simple: some of what we have lost. We perceive it is you who has reinterpreted the Second Amendment.

It appears you choose to categorically reject returns in the same space as losses; what do you wish, that we exchange something trite like steaks and sexual favors in return for all firearms? Do you believe firearm rights are somehow perfectly fungible? If so, it would appear you yourself are insisting on complete, utter victory.

I cannot begin to speak for others, but ask not for complete victory. Rather, I wish we would make steps back in what gun owners regard as a positive direction. The seven options hga gave above are not a linked list, they are several options. Even one would be regarded as a victory.
What if there was no tenure and the pie would be re-divided based on performance every year? If that would disproportionately help the more productive scientists, wouldn't that help attract more funding for science and make the pie bigger for everyone? Why can't science work like the rest of the world?
The cube sequence doesn't make sense to me.

What kind of guard will let a cube not pass through the system like that? If I were that guard I would find that cube throw highly suspicious.

And while we are at it, wouldn't it be easier to hide the microSD card under the tongue for example?

And lastly, where exactly are you supposed to stick that card into in the facility? Even low-level security companies glue all USB/card reader inputs.
Didn't CoreOS recently dump systemd?
Police very seldom, and sometimes never have to use their guns, except maybe to threaten. They're paid to keep the peace and all that, the gun is merely one of many tools, although the one that all others ultimately rest on.
higher up in this thread, it is argued that the primary purpose of a gun is either punching holes in a piece of paper or a "tin can" or busting clay birds.

those don't seem like times when it is critical to work every time.
http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_60_0/libs/coroutine2/doc/htm...
Would you mind describing some of the goals, current problems, and some "must-read" papers on the topic?

I'm in a university so I have access to most journals.

I'm very interested in learning more about this.
whenever you read a pro-systemd post, you'll see things like "buggy shell scripts" or "just change the logger!" pop up a lot. keep track.
>> it can be a good signal for whether you have practical experience with X.

This should be vetted out well in advance of an interview, especially for a developer. If you don't have at least a half dozen repos somewhere with code examples of sites or apps you've built, then there's a very high chance you're not going to get an interview. I've only been coding for 7-8 years and I have an extensive GitHub page, can point to close to 200 public sites I've built (both dynamic and static) and have a portfolio full of images from other projects I've worked on.

If you can't ascertain whether a person has practical experience with a tool, software, or language then you're not doing your due diligence.
The plan is not to ban non-smart guns next week. Obama is calling for a push to improve the technology until it becomes reliable. Despite the Hitomi failure, we have sent a few hundred things into space pretty successfully. Half the systems in your car are under computer control. Opposing technology that could save thousands of lives a year because it doesn't work perfectly yet is bullshit.
My understanding was that the goal of that research project is to produce tools for proving code written in unsafe Rust as safe at the API boundary (with limitations around FFI and inline assembly, of course).
I would say the usual way to do it is as you said,
to use functions and pattern matching, but there are some cases
where it makes sense to have multiple things that could failed
grouped in the same function, which is where `with` helps to keep
things clean.
For example, If I want to find a header from a request and
then to extract some info from it, I think
it makes more sense to keep everything in a single function.
You don't. You also don't kill things when you target shoot. You can run over things with a car, or you can race one. You can kill things with a gun, or you can shoot paper targets with one. Get it?
I can't help but see publicly-funded science as deprecated in favor of market-driven science. There's simply too many fields for government largesse to really be able to fund in force. I wish it didn't have to be so subject to the whims of popular opinion, but really, I can't think of a better way.
I really hate that.

I'd say at least half of the questions/answers I come across are closed flagged as vague, or whatever but at the same time, were incredibly informative, useful and exactly what I was looking for.

The SO moderators need to chillax a bit.
Egalitarian? That just means equal protection under the law. I' guessing you mean something akin to everyone ending up with the same size basket of goodies at the end of each round of the game...

Of the societies we humans apparently know how to create... We know how to create societies with equal misery. We have from time-to-time been able to construct unequal societies with growing wealth, where everyone did better than their parents, over time -- and than those in many societies around them and in history.

What we have never been able to construct is a society where everyone is equal and wealthy and getting more-so. This may or may not be possible with human beings. One thing is certain -- we're not bees.

While poverty is a real tragedy and a real grind, a harm to people that should be mitigated, it's not clear that the fact that someone somewhere might be richer than me is any sort of tragedy whatsoever that needs to be addressed.
That's because Win95 is running on top of Bochs. Bochs simulates every x86 instruction in software. Getting Bochs to run on Apple Watch is itself impressive!
We're about 10-20 years from self-driving cars. Smart guns seem like a gimme.
>>Have you ever started a business?

Yes I have.

>>Most people are not supportive, including developers. You might even lose friends over it. You are going against the norm and most people can't relate and find it strange.

Software is one of the few industries where leaving a stable job and striking out on your own is an acceptable and relatable career path. The reasons are two-fold: low cost of entry and the many inspirational and well-publicized stories about famous software startups. Google, Apple, Microsoft, Facebook... any developer who has been in the industry for more than a few years will be familiar with how those companies got founded.

All of my friends were supportive when I started my own business. Not everyone approved, but they all understood. If you've lost friends when you started yours... maybe you should pick better friends next time.
Selling Queerness: The Curious Case of Fun Home
While we're on this wild and irrelevant tangent, people frequently die from blackouts. See the Northeast blackout in 2003 where a dozen people died.
I'm pretty sure magma is basically the original Lavabit code.
He also performed with "Slave" painted across his face/chest. He REALLY didn't like his treatment by the studio.
No, it is a completely egotistical and futile exercise used to produce public funding consuming academics.

This method of doing things offers a sound approach to developing things rather than ad-hoc implementations. It allows properties about the method to be proved with absolute certainty.

In hindsight after you have "done" it, everything seems they were doable.

Monads for example proved to be very useful in functional languages, and as Phil Wadler puts it "it is doubtful that the structuring methods presented here would have been discovered without the insight afforded by category theory. But once discovered they are easily expressed without any reference to things categorical. No knowledge of category theory is required to read these notes." in his now famous paper [0].

But maybe monads are too exotic to provide a good example. Let's talk about higher-order functions instead. Closures are very common to all programming languages these days and they existed long long before we had the first computer thanks to the lambda calculus. It would be nice then we look at lambda calculus to understand use and ramifications of such constructs. What they are good for, if they have limitations, etc.

More importantly, there seems to be a correspondent logic to useful type theories we come up with (or perhaps discover). One famous example is Curry-Howard correspondence [1]. So it might be useful if we understood what has come decades, sometimes centuries before, rather than reinventing the wheel.

[0] http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/wadler/papers/marktoberdorf/ba...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry–Howard_correspondence
C++ says "no" to readability. Everything that has been added to C to create C++ was added in order to help out the person writing new code. Nothing that was added to C to make C++ is there to help the person trying to read the code. Though I doubt it was deliberate, much of what makes C++ different than C seems actively hostile to the person trying to read the code.
As a developer who used to build systems in embedded C++ and now spends all of my time building web backends in mostly Python, I have to agree with the premise that C++ is becoming more influenced by Python. That's a good thing, I think. I really think C++ is a wonderful language if properly curated and used by a responsible team of developers.

One tiny thing that would be cool to see built into C++ would be an equivalent to the Python range function. The boost version is nice for now, though.

Finally, I also see this as a nice compliment to Python and the power that it offers as a language.
The Ruger 10/22 has been in production a long time.

I have one that was a gift for my 12'th birthday. I'm 45.
From the linked page:

> The Tab Groups (Panorama) feature will be removed from Firefox in version 45. We know this may be inconvenient and we apologize. Removing the Tab Groups feature will make it easier for us to improve Firefox.

This is plain stupid. How much effort could it be to maintain this feature? Compared to Hello, or Rust, or Servo? None of these are useful to most Firefox users, but tab groups were. How more complex is this than the WebMaker or Persona, stuff that practically no-one uses? Is this harder that writing their current homepage, with blocks, pictures and fancy? I'm not touching a Mozilla product again.
Clearly you never watched Death Race 2000 - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072856/
I worship at the alter of John Moses Browning, so no MIC holsters for me any time soon.... But I have many many others to choose from, they've been insanely, amazingly even for me popular with civilians for a long time.

And, yeah, slow is a good word to use there ^_^.

(#1 one overriding reason is that since I was a teen the M1911 fits my hand like a glove, and I can shoot it very well. And 8 round magazines weren't a big forfeit when I started buying handguns after leaving Massachusetts and the Federal AW ban was in effect.)
Automated defense turrets for area denial perhaps, but 'dumb guns' will exist until a weapon superior to the gun is devised.
You seem to forget that the bash scripts are the entire rc system. In systemd, the init binary and utilities are the entire rc system.

Those commands will not help you if you have to find a bug into systemd code to find something like a constant on the maximum size of a core dump and work around it. Then open a bug and hope it does not get ignored for ~3 years. But who needs core dumps anyway, right?
I don't see why politicians would actively oppose something like this. It's more a matter of practicality. There's barely a handful of countries that hold internet access a human right and they still don't have 100% penetration. Just a right that access has to be available. A working computer or smartphone costs money on its own. The US is about 88% which is pretty good, but not 100%.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IT.NET.USER.P2
don't you need a viable idea to start your own company? maybe they didn't.
PL is vastly huge, so you have to be more specific about "topic." What are you interested in learning? I personally specialize in experience, and could list many (what I consider seminal) papers that are not even on the radar for other PL researchers.
The drama started around the time of Poettering's hijacking of someone else's 27c3 speech, accusing people that don't use logind of "hating handicapped people"[0], and continued from there.

0. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTdUmlGxVo0&t=23m00s
When I read articles like this, I have to believe they have someone on the inside, or have some inside knowledge as to how the transfers take place and where the weak points in the process are.
Markets do a terrible job of funding basic research because it rarely pays off within commercial timeframes. Or even lifetimes. But it's obviously vital to a society long-term.
The person with dirty money is paid with the reward of other blocks, not the one with his transaction.
Oh brother. It was shorthand. Sorry if you didn't get my meaning at first but I think you get my point now.
It depends; many of us realize we're already on plenty of lists of "undesirables", so OPSEC measures like that are not yet needed, although it might be a good idea to get in practice now.

And it's not just smartphones, all will at minimum triangulate to the nears cell towers while on.
But opposing it because of the political ramifications isn't. See California's micro-stamping bill: politicians mandated a technology which was literally infeasible to implement.
The title is slightly misleading.
Inline assembly code in asm statements has no effect on the stack.

If you have your own .S files, and those do not contain the magic handshake, then the stack will stay executable, and this is indeed a programmer trap.

The reason for this is that historically the stack was always executable, so it could not be make non-executable by default, it had to be opt in. In fact, gcc will generate code that requires the stack to be executable if you use a certain gcc extension (related to nested functions).

The other way to opt-in into non-executable stack is passing --noexecstack to as(1) (or when via gcc, use -Wa,--noexecstack)

This ought to be better documented, but it's not. The rationaly is probably that you should not be writing assembly code if you don't know this kind of detail? I can only guess about this.
Maybe they are being paid for their usefulness, having a PhD certificate is not in itself useful.
Would you mind downvoting this chris_wot's comments on this thread? I can't because they're replies to me. He's basically spamming, asking for info given in the toplevel post. IDK if such request complies with HN Guidelines but I can't be bothered to collect whatever amount of karma needed to flag/downvote a spammer, sorry.

Edit: I can't down vote him because the blinking arrow does not appear on replies to me (I have 990 karma, maybe not enough) or else I'd do it myself.
you can use google drive to do this. Click the new document button in the app and select "scan".
I just had some teeth X-rays at a pretty regular dental clinic here in Taiwan. They were showing me the results and explaning what they have found. I was totally amazed how thing that look super-light tiny shadows for me at one place they say "we must check", while elsewhere they were "nothing". What you see totally depends on the expertise you have and I think it wouldn't be hard at all to spot things that for us outsiders are just "maybe a little bit lighter".
No, the primary use of guns, and purpose of most guns in Americans' hands, although that's rapidly changing.

And you have clearly never been in a marksmanship competition.
Serious request, what do you think about unhosted client side crypto?

https://youtube.com/watch?v=WTPimUSIWbI
What criteria do you propose to evaluate performance? And how do you plan to compare the performance between different sciences or different areas in some science?
The analogy is really stretched. The racing sport equivalent to target shooting would be running over paper targets.
Here you go - converted to TTF and downloadable:
http://www.dailydot.com/technology/prince-font-install-love-...

(straight to dropbox: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/jvj2ss4jfymvir1/AAD_x2sTAfJM8xsgF...)
Sure beats finding out after you hire the psychopath.
I think what most opposition to smart guns centers on is the assertion that the technology could "save thousands of lives". It would be great to see hard numbers of exactly how many people are killed with immediately stolen guns, and I doubt it would be in the thousands.

As the author's prior article in the series notes, such technology will almost invariably be easily bypassed. Criminals will, unfortunately, remain criminals, and will disable the technology or continue to buy guns underground. None of this even addresses the fact that many murders are perpetrated by legal owners of said guns, which this technology would do nothing about.

As is usual with such things, if smart-gun technology were legislated its only measurable effect would be on law-abiding citizens, adding yet more potential felonies to the maze we traverse daily.
The leap second: Because our clocks are more accurate than the Earth
razor-thin margins on water strained through coffee grounds?

or just razor-thin margins on the stale muffins and biscotti?
Yea I found a article about the font and how they recovered the original.
http://www.dailydot.com/technology/prince-font-install-love-...