skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Oh, no doubt. The issue is that the tools don't appear to document their limitations and constraints, and there is often no way of knowing until you get bitten.

At least with OSS you can look at the code behind the program to work out how it calculates things like the bend radius.

I'm no engineer, so I had to look it up (Wikipedia was no help whatsoever on this occasion) but I located this page which gives the formula and an explanation:

"Calculating the correct flat pattern layout is crucial to getting a good quality finished part from your press brake. Yet, many CAD and CNC programmers have no idea how to calculate the required values. Years ago, the real experts created cheat sheets and tacked them to the wall. They only taught the new apprentice how to apply the results shown on the cheat sheet, not how to calculate the numbers. Well, now those experts have retired and it's time for a new generation to learn the right way to do the calculate the correct flat pattern layout."

http://www.sheetmetalguy.com/bend-allowance.htm

Now admittedly the guy does put the responsibility on the operator, but it appears CAD packages can indeed calculate this for you. So long as the right info was input into the program, the formula should be programmed correctly and the operator should be able to have confidence in the results!
Isn't Core M a tablet chip?
"Hello new player" - add ironic trolling to the list - bravo
I'd love to read about the physics of sugar paste on moving surfaces :-)
Maybe LHC workers should adopt the term "deweaseling" for troubleshooting problems.
Your recall is correct - it was an Israeli daycare: http://priceonomics.com/effectiveness-of-fines-for-late-pick...
Customer complaints don't just ignore themselves!
You are ignoring huge problems.

How does a LAMP/RAILS app share server side rendering code with the client?

How does a LAMP/RAILS app share data models between the server and client?

How does a LAMP/RAILS app provide search engines with indexable dynamic pages?

How does a LAMP/RAILS app preserve client state between page reloads?

How does a LAMP/RAILS app synchronize client state between multiple connected clients?

Your lack of experience working in a professional front-end environment is telling, and is the source of your confusion.
This is awesome. Much more engaging than finding the first 100 primes.
I measured my heartrate at Coachella
Don't people in CS just ignore that crap and post free PDFs of "preprints" (taken the second before submission of camera ready) on personal websites?

IME the publishers fuck up the formatting anyways.
'simple people' as opposed to?
I think people are coming down really hard on the article, and I found it to be light-hearted, and simply asking people to revisit where we're at. He doesn't call for anybody to stop using their frameworks. I am studying Erlang/LFE. I chose LFE over Elixir (I know it is not a framework), since I like Lisp rather than the Ruby-like syntax of Elixir, and because one of the creators of Erlang (Robert Virding) has his weight behind LFE; he created it. It is a subjective choice for me. Elixir is great, and a lot of Ruby hackers have picked it up. Do I need Erlang/BEAM/OTP ,right now? Certainly not, but I am studying it anyhow. If I get the chance to implement it for a job, would I do it just because I like it, and WhatsApp uses it effectively? No, unless a fit comes along for it.
I do think a lot of people aspire to work for FB and Co. and so they learn those their frameworks, and I would wager there is probably a lot of people trying to bring them into their smaller companies to get the chance to work with them.
I find the simile to building a car from scratch, stretching it if you are not FB, WhatsApp, or another biggie.
And you should be eager to be able to step into a smaller company who has outgrown its "homegrown" implementation and help them use a framework; you just shouldn't find your happiness only when your neighbor's cow dies ;)
But a smaller company shouldn't run with a framework with the vision they will be needing it in 3 years based upon no real analysis of their needs, but based just on wishful thinking. The money could be used to grow the company, and then adopt it at the appropriate time.
So why haven't we seen the same story apply for the chromebook market(which btw is 10% of laptops) ? It has open and fair competition between Atoms and Arm's.
A letter of thanks to Apple, from a grateful dad
I have my doubts on the future of the Edison. I was going to use it in a project but ended up giving up and switching to ARM after so many bugs went unresolved across multiple platform releases. The power consumption vs performance is incredible, but it just feels like they're not taking it seriously beyond single quantity orders for individual makers
Vest in peace.

In 3 years you'd have made a total of $2mil and can retire and do whatever you want.

It's not only ok but also healthy to post this question, because you're full of ideas and want to work on other things. It's not very ok to blow your earnings off. I'd stick it out if I were you and would be happy to trade places.
Woven bark fiber
Sir Tim Berners-Lee had a planet named for him
You want this stuff: http://www.amazon.com/Install-Bay-Split-Loom-Inch/dp/B005V9U... Of course they chew through that too, but it takes them just long enough that you can move the cable/distract them before they get to the cable itself.

Also, our rabbit tends to ignore cables that are flat along the ground. Only diagonal ones that cross her path ever seem to draw her attention.
This eternal argument of js framework/non-framework reminds me of them old days of static html when Dreamweaver will just munch a PSD file and spit out working HTML + Images + CSS. Some of us hated it b/c the output was bloated, super hard to read/maintain, etc. So, some of us just went ahead and coded from scratch. I guess the preference has to do with a need to 'understand' what's going on. Tools like React or frameworks like Angular are just the modern Dreamweavers: don't mind the inner-workings, just follow the rules and get the desired output.

If I can recommend a js framework so flexible it feels like a non-framework I'd say go and learn Backbone.js It's like a flat green Lego table, no assumptions, just structure.
Intel is an ARM architecture licensee.
Why would you use Intel products if you wanted to build an open-source handheld?

I'm looking forward to the not-very-distant day that we no longer need to use Intel products so that we can build open-source laptops.
npm install --save-dev vanilla-js-loader
Definitely continue discussing harm reduction, even if it means putting yourself out there publicly and that some close-minded people will judge you for that.

As for your blog post and the response here, I only have one comment -- continue to focus on your health with the same drive and passion that you have toward coding! I realize you took a few weeks to get healthy and change your diet, but for me at least, learning how to consistently lead a balanced, healthy lifestyle took many years. I'm not suggesting that you read thousands of nutrition studies or anything, but instead everything from learning where the best farmer's markets in your city are, what sports you enjoy and building relationships with people who play them, figuring out what triggers you to make unhealthy decisions, etc. I encourage you to approach your health in a 'holistic' way. It's a long journey and a highly personal one, but it's worth the effort.
Yeah why not? Let's reinvent the wheel every fucking time.

I'm sure your clients and your family will love that.
> To begin, React isn't a framework.

The way I look at it:

- If you use a library that augments your style of work but doesn't change it then it's a library. Maybe a tool.

- If you use a library that replaces or changes your style of work then it is a framework.

React is a framework in my opinion. It can be used as a library but it's almost never used that way; most people incorporate JSX and much of the virtual dom into their workflow.

But this is pedantic. I feel comfortable I could make an argument for almost any JavaScript library being a framework as well as not being a framework.

> Scale your app up, however, and you’re going to end up with a framework anyway. The only difference is that it will be your own framework, and chances are it will be difficult to understand, hard to maintain, and full of bugs, and you may even be stuck with it because of how much it would cost to change.

While correct I cannot disagree with you enough. If you write clean, as-simple-as-possible code with clear separations of concerns it's dead easy to maintain and not necessarily "full of bugs". It really just boils down to how well a developer can architect an application to determine if their own framework is going to be a huge bottle neck / issue or a breeze. I've been through both :)

> You’re welcome to give this up to be a cowboy, but me: I’ve been there, thought I was that smart, and realized how much better off I am by not trying to reinvent the wheel every time.

I'm not a fan of this sentiment. If it makes the most sense (and it doesn't always) I try to avoid using frameworks but I would hardly call myself a cowboy (though perhaps I will going forward, ha).

The DOM API, as this article shows, provides quite a bit of functionality that many popular frameworks / libraries provide and as long as you don't need to target old browsers you're fine here.

Yes, angular and react do a lot for you but you can still write effective web applications without them with minimal "reinventing of the wheel". Just because someone provides a way to do X in a framework doesn't mean it's not easy to still do X without a framework. Many times the bulk of the framework's capabilities are supporting its own, specialized workflow that isn't always necessary.
There's a very suitable verb for describing this process: "enterprisify"

This trend toward "frameworkfulness" probably started with OOP and Java in the mid 90s, and spread from there. Fortunately they seem to be realising the ridiculousness and gradually getting out of that mindset, but unfortunately other developer cultures like JS are now headed in that direction.
Nobody brings in a framework out of hope that it will lead to them getting a job at said sponsors company.

If they do they are very very misled.

People choose a framework because they want to benefit from the R&D done at said company, and avoid sinking similar R&D costs into their product.

I don't find happiness when my neighbors "cow dies" (I like that metaphor), but it does pay the bills, and that makes me happy. If people keep making the same mistakes, I will keep getting the same contracts in my inbox.

p.s. try breaking up your wall of text in future posts, it makes your response really difficult to read.
You can get a raspberry pi with an atheros chipset wifi dongle and you have pretty much a completely open source stack. It just doesn't look very nice to users.

>> Also except for selling openness, what else will sell that you couldn't do today ?

Anything that doesn't fit into Google's technical design / strategy that sells and customers like it.

Android has heaps of preconceived notions about how a handheld should work that are baked into the system and unchangeable.

If you are looking for exact examples of things that are not currently technically possible on android, how about a phone with a gps button widget that doesn't require you to leave the maps app to enable/disable gps or (not that I would personally pursue this) the ability to play video in a distributable app widget.
The Legend of Prince’s Special Custom-Font Symbol Floppy Disks
What's wrong with a sane makefile oriented thing with a small tool chain and letting the user pick the editor/IDE?
Why does every large company build out this ridiculous IDE for their product?
This is a great idea. I've been in many interviews where I thought I did pretty well only to be told, "oh, this is just the first of many interviews". I wouldn't have applied if I had known since every onsite interview requires me to at least take half a day off from work. That is time that can be used for something else.

But I do have to mention that with the Big4, they will let you know in detail about the whole process during the phone interview so that's cool by me.
I don't think he was talking about verifying the software itself. Even if the software was open source, would it have been formally verified to make sure it has zero bugs? It is better to check the calculations by hand to make sure that no critical errors make it into the final design.
Emacs for Data Science
I'm not going to engage you on what you do, but you need to re-read some of the comments you've made. A lot of it is too hostile / oddly opinionated to be taken seriously, regardless of message. Whatever it is, it's not good communication.
I just want to be able to call all the shots on the design of my product.

Intel has historically been very open on the desktop. Linux and computing in general wouldn't be where it is without that openness.
Yeah it's honestly pretty disgusting. Mozilla's strong add-on system has been one of their largest advertisable features for /years/. Just because a bunch of people have switched to inferior webkit/blink based browsers doesn't necessarily mean that the opposition's technology is superior. If I were the head of Mozilla, I'd get rid of everyone who has suggested: removing complete themes, removing the XUL/XPCOM add-ons and SDK, cutting off support for thunderbird/SeaMonkey/etc. Servo is an interesting browser project, but it's also a /separate/ project. They need to stop focusing on stupid fluff like pocket/hello/etc; instead, focus on bug zapping and core technology improvements (HTML5, etc.) If Mozilla continues gimping their core software any more, their user base will literally be 0.

Disclaimer: I am an ardent supported of the Suite (SeaMonkey) and everything Mozilla will be doing in the next year will probably completely kill it (ChatZilla, themes, add-ons, etc.)

Example: by this time next year, pretty much nothing you see here will be possible in SeaMonkey anymore thanks to the idiotic decisions from the Mozilla top brass:

http://i.imgur.com/g4SwoFa.png

http://i.imgur.com/uDHcZpw.png

http://i.imgur.com/fO4Qz8A.png
This may surprise you, but we used to make web pages without JS. I know, it's a shocker!!! But guess what? 1 is irrelevant, 2 is irrelevant, 3 is there by default, 4 is easily solved, and so is 5. Turns out, logic on just the server side is simpler. It may not be as pretty, but please don't assume that your way is the only way.
No, the Quark SoCs are 486ish cores, not Atom.
> And then having a common app structure with thousands of other people that can provide help and insight.

You don't think that there are thousands of people who can provide help and insight into the standard Web & DOM API's? I mean, do you in all seriousness think that there are more people that can help you with React than it is that can help you with the Web & DOM API?
Not to mention the standard browser libraries have decades worth of documentation and information about them, freely available.

> * client side router * data transportation/cache layer * view layer * model layer * build pipeline

Let's narrow that down a bit:

client-side router - There's examples online of a router that's 20 lines[1]

data transportation/cache layer - Umm, what? The browser already takes care of data transportation (also known as the HTTP protocol, WebSocket protocol or WebRTC - whichever floats your boat). Surprisingly, it also takes care of caching as well.

view layer - if you absolutely need one, here[2] - 2KB and has everything you need.

model layer - `class Model { ... }` and `let model = new Model('path/to/component')`. Simple as that.

build pipeline - don't really need to "build" thanks to HTTP/2. Otherwise if you want to transpile anything you could always just setup a single-line `npm run build` script.

> You people really are kidding yourselves. I feel bad for whoever is paying your salaries.

Why can't you try to have a friendly discussion instead of attacking on a personal level as you've done countless times throughout the comments. Nobody's pointing a gun at you.

[1] - http://joakim.beng.se/blog/posts/a-javascript-router-in-20-l...
[2] - https://github.com/pakastin/frzr
How does a LAMP/RAILS app share server side rendering code with the client?

It doesn't, because I don't need/want it to. Any data that needs to be passed to the client is rendered as JSON. Client-side get committed to the database via AJAX (to my buzzword-o-rific REST api), or with good-ol' POST.

How does a LAMP/RAILS app share data models between the server and client?

Again, not needed.

How does a LAMP/RAILS app provide search engines with indexable dynamic pages?

Uh, through clever use of jquery AJAX and postgres indices?

How does a LAMP/RAILS app preserve client state between page reloads?

A serverside redis cache? In the database? In the cookie? LocalStorage? C'mon man.

How does a LAMP/RAILS app synchronize client state between multiple connected clients?

By pushing a hash with current state to all clients via polling? Websockets? Whatsitcalled where you don't close the original HTTP connection? Did you know postgres has some pretty awesome realtime pubsub tech? I suppose if I have some extra time I could send changesets and load them with $.merge()

...

I just want you to know that you are doing nothing to improve my image of the JS-scene-writ-large as immature, spoiled, and childish. There are isolated pockets of brilliance, for sure, but the everyday talk scares me.
That makes "This only happened AFTER nest was no longer a Google property" a totally meaningless semantic distinction, then, and leaves me confused as to the point you're trying to make with it. You don't suddenly have "a new boss" when they get married and change their name.
At least they could have waited a year, so ES6 = ES2016, ES7 = ES2017.
Has a book ever contained a misprint because of a bug in a word processor?

Has software ever contained a bug because of a bug in an editor?
Oh man, the Austin TX design group...
I recently had the privilege of listening to Brian LaMacchia speak on this and other developments in the post-quantum cryptography space at Microsoft research. What they're doing is remarkable and their commitment to the space is impressive. SIDH is an exciting problem and I'm looking forward to reading more work on implementations and cryptanalysis.

Well done to the people at MSR behind this paper!
If that's what my client wants then yes I'll be there on time and in my seat coding. But I set my own hours as a contractor. How? Communication. You have to communicate what you are doing to your client and that is the OP's greatest failure here. It's a weakness of a lot of programmers given our general solitude and my own miscommunication in the past has lead to way more problems than any coding problem could.
ding ding ding ding! We have a winner. The just leave it in the fastest gear that is slow enough to not hit the car in front of them. For the extra 5min it costs it's a lot easier than pushing a bazillion pound clutch twice per cycle.
You can drink as you go so it's no problem.
>> All of this works without requiring that we install or operate our own container scheduler system like Mesos, Kubernetes, Docker Swarm or Core OS Fleet.

You can use kubernetes without installing and operating it yourself on Google Cloud PLatform too, it's called Google Container Engine but it's k8s under the hood.

My experience with ECS is very brief, as contrasted with several months working daily with k8s. My first impressions of ECS was that it is cobbled together from a bunch of existing AWS services, and as such it requires you to get far more involved in the various APIs than kubernetes on GCP does.

Overall kubernetes feels more like a cohesive abstraction because that's what it is. ECS by comparison feels like a solution pieced together out of Amazon's existing proprietary parts because that's what it is. I'm sure they will be improving this.
> Don't worry about it

As an engineer who has been fired twice for performance problems, I don't have that luxury.

> Break touch tasks down into very, very laughably small tasks.

This works well if you've used the technology/tool before and you feel like you understand what you are doing. It is very difficult if you are in the circumstance of having to learn things as you go and having to prodding at things and trying things to figure out how things work. In cases like these, it is better to just figure out what the smallest first step is and iterate that way.

Unless of course you have the breathing room to spend time working through a tutorial on whatever set of abstractions you are trying to work with.
> I can't imagine trying to build a:
* client side router * data transportation/cache layer * view layer * model layer * build pipeline

Why can't you? Routers are easy; you likely don't need more than a few lines of code to accomplish most of what you need. Caching and data transportation is also easy and simple (there are a million cache libraries if you don't want to write a small one). Views and models have been done since the 90s and are relatively easy as well (in fact I wrote one in just a few minutes the other day to drop some dependencies from a personal project). Though models are not always the best way but I'm digressing.

Build pipelines usually add more complexity than needed in my experience. I almost always, eventually, nix whatever complicated build pipeline I start out with and go with something dead simple.

Most of this stuff has been done for over 15 years on the web. It's at the point where it should be mostly boilerplate / routine if you're not using a framework.
Windows 8.1 Permanent Activator Free Download 2016
Saying "React is all about composable components" is just as incomplete as saying "React is all about performance."

Here's my attempt: React is about making composable UI easy using stateless components which can still update fast because of the virtual DOM optimization.

(OK looking again you did say "functional" which implies something similar)

It's a bit harder to understand than the simple API indicates, especially coming from other kinds of stateful architecture. What I like best about React is how yoy can optimize stateless components incrementally, all the way up to where you're doing everything with raw DOM manipulation in the lifecycle methods. And how it's fast enough that you usually don't have to optimize at all.
> If your code had been as easy to understand as you say it
> is there would have been no need to re-write it.

In theory, only difficult-to-understand and/or difficult-to-maintain code is rewritten. In practice, the definition for “difficult-to-understand” and “difficult-to-maintain” often boil down to whatever the team decides they are familiar with... Or want to be familiar with.

I wouldn’t assume there’s any correlation whatsoever between the quality, readability, or maintainability of code and whether it gets rewritten when a new team arrives.

Sometimes, that’s just what happens, whether we think it’s justified or not.
[1, intmax, -1]
In some special environment, such as Electron (Atom shell), that can ignore the cross-browser problem, writing application using native Web API and DOM API and ES6 is elegant and effective.
If a couple has two children, each person in that couple has two children as well, not one. IE, if you ask a father of two how many children he has, the answer is "two", not "one; the other one is my wife's".

So saying each person gets one child is basically equivalent to saying each couple gets one child, except there's no need to include the concept of a "couple" in the equation.