skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I agree. Source control is an integral part of my workflow and it hurts to know that if someone here were to maintain my code later, they'd just copy and paste it as-is and start from there. The reasons for this are two-fold:

1) Like you said: Inertia. Most projects/developers here have been around for years, many starting before git was a thing. SVN is around and used quite a bit, but like I said, I've talked to developers that use neither. Since the code lives on the server, and the server is backed up, people feel no need for source control. Which is part of...

2) At least in the web development I'm doing, there's little to no "collaboration". I have been the sole person actually writing code on every project so far. There are teams working together, but usually every project has a single developer. This place is so vulnerable to their developers getting hit by a bus. But management doesn't care because 12 months down the line, once the developer is no longer working the project for whatever reason, the project is scrapped and either re-done because no one else was involved in the technical details, or they spend another year in federal procurement hell to get a shitty off-the-shelf product.
thought this was a flux library at first ha
I think OpenBSD's `pledge` syscall would be sufficient in this case. Calling

pledge("stdio rpath wpath", {"path/to/input", "path/to/output"});

would blacklist any subsequent syscall that are not in the stdio or rpath or wpath lists [0] or pertain to a file that is not the input or output.

[0] http://man.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi/OpenBSD-current/man2/...
What is the rationale of low contrast text?
>>Capital gains are basically money you earn for having money and not being an idiot with it.

This is called 'investment'.

It takes a lot of effort and time to be good at it.

Also as long as inflation exists, one will need investments.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6vi528gseA
Their state of endangerment was a superposition of being endangered and not until the cave was opened.
You know, I really doubt that Mark wakes up in the morning, meets with his editing team, and says "guys, we need to push the globalist left agenda". The company is massive, so to say that he has some kind of finger on a "left agenda" button is way over simplifying things.
Yes, because when humans think of groups of people, we usually think in terms of percentage of Earth's population.

"How many people are coming over for dinner tonight?"

"Oh, not too many, just about 2.8070175e-10%"

"Ahh, so one chicken will do"
For example, you factorize A into LU, so that you have LUx = b.

Now you can let Ux = y, solve the system Ly = b for y, then solve Ux = y for x.

Solving each triangular system is fast: O(n^2).

If you need to do this with a different b, you can do it again, and you already have A factorized, which was the expensive part, i.e. O(n^3).

(Depending on the type of problem, you might want to factorize the original matrix in a different way, e.g. QR or Cholesky or whatever.)
Also, weather. And arguably affordable housing - you can at least trade commute for housing, if you want to live ~20-30m south of the 10.
How is Keras not on here!
See this issue comment: https://github.com/alex-sherman/deco/issues/2#issuecomment-2...
Ah, that's the context I was missing, thanks!

In games we can usually just transpose the inner 3x3 R+S, invert scale and handle translation similarly to get a semi-quick inverse.
Sure, assuming that A is full-rank and small, then its perfectly reasonable to invert A with adjoint(A)/discriminant(A). But this is very expensive, and sensitive to roundoff for larger A.

Lets say you are using QR factorization. Then R\b is easy to compute by back-substitution, because R is triangular. Q\b is also easy, because Q is orthogonal, and Q's inverse is its transpose, so you just calculate transpose(Q)*b.

Same thing for LDL^T factorization, LU factorization, etc. Its easy because back-substitution with a triangular matrix is easy. In the case of LDL^T factorization, D is diagonal, and again D\b is easy (its a bunch of rank-1 division operations).
It's notable that bitcoin is the default payment method.
Maybe you could be your own reviewer. Just pick something you did a month or two ago and check whether it still makes sense.
OmniFocus Sync Encryption: Gory Technical Details
There's work on it in the verification community but not quite a full emulator yet. Is work on various pieces though. Meanwhile, separation kernels like seL4 and verified hypervisors like NOVA/Seoul can reduce risks.
it can be easily implemented in mainstream languages like Java and C#."
https://oleksandrmanzyuk.wordpress.com/2014/06/18/from-objec...
When I started programming, C was just yet another systems programming language.

Low level coders were using straight Assembly.

I find ironic to see such statements about 40 years later.
What are these "more direct and optimal measures" that are cheaper than code reviews?

In my experience code reviews are much cheaper than other means of raising software quality. For example unit tests only start to add real value after you have written a good bunch of them, so they form this regression-safety-net.

I haven't seen Continuous integration and refactoring being thrown out of the window because of code reviews. Quite the opposite. Code reviews usually ask the author to refactor his code further. Similarly I have no idea why one would stop continuous integration because of code reviews.
What would the performance penalty be?
Then Cyclone or any of safe C subsets/variants.
It isn't a documentary; it's a speech / spoken essay, embellished with archive footage and so on.

And a rather good one, in my view.
How about Chicago?
Thanks for the hint on swiping the spacebar. I still miss the ability to move the cursor vertically and select with the trackpad but this at least makes Gboard usable for me.

I think I had the same false-negative problem you are describing with 3D touch trackpad, but it seemed to get a lot better for me with the iOS 9.3 release. Maybe I'm imagining it, but it seemed like there were improvements to whatever algorithm determines a user's intention for normal vs 3D touch.

On the other hand, maybe I trained myself to their algorithm. It seems like starting with light contact and increasing pressure is a more reliable trigger than just going in with firm pressure right away.
I wonder... [Generic speculation follows] Assuming the query was not rhetorical, I would wager that at least as far as analytic philosophy is concerned, it's the vast differences in vocabularies (linguistic/conceptual). Take any pair of contemporary analytic philosophy papers wherein the first argues for some position (by way of e.g. distancing the position from specific others etc etc.), and the second is mostly a critique of some point or another of the first one. Both are sound contributions. The vocabulary becomes really particular and peculiar, however, with arguments sometimes built as rebuttals / solutions to previous arguments, some specific nuance being argued; particular terms are used everywhere. There could be quite a bit of formal language involved, but usually linguistic terms will be heavily relied upon, too.

Then, if you wished to be able to understand the two papers, you would have to trace back to previous arguments etc., and most certainly the understanding of the second would come after being able to absorb the first one. This in itself is of course not a unique thing at all, but I think what with philosophers not purely relying on formal logic, the terms constructed/used become very specific and numerous; these terms are words in a language and so a specific linguistic framework is heavily relied upon (this is the crucial point).. if that makes sense.

An eclectic parallel could be Mochizuki's (Japanese mathematician) (proposed) proof of the abc conjecture[1]. It's quite massive, with multiple papers of his establishing a specific theory[2] used for the proof. The proof has been presented in 2012 and it's still being evaluated. His way was very custom, and this poses a practical problem.

What I meant to say is that it's probably not at all easy to present some new ideas in (say) analytic philosophy which employ a number of new notions (or just notions under new names). This is of course not ideal at all, but it's a tricky thing. [edit expanded some words]

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abc_conjecture

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter-universal_Teichm%C3%BCll...
I can't imagine why anyone would want to do it other than to mess with me. However, as there is a competing product that could be a possibility.
Thank you for pointing this out. I hadn't read the last one, and was actually wondering if they'd just shut down, without concluding in some form or other. Love this stuff:

"This brings forth fanciful and motivational questions about domain areas, such as (...) "How many t-shirts will be required to define TCP/IP" (about 3), or all the graphical operations needed for personal computing?" (about 10)."

[ed: Actually thought the pdf deserved a submission of its own, lets see if other people think so too:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11686325

]
Why it's good to make a startup when your are a student
Which of these is Rust missing?

(Though I should caution that it's not as simple as "just write in a safe language" if you're doing the tricks that QEMU does for speed. That's not to say we shouldn't be moving away from C and C++ in general, however--we should.)
>>I have a really really hard time feeling bad for people who bought homes in the bay area in ~1980. They won the lottery.

>>On the other hand, the person who moved to SF in 1980 and decided to rent, I feel bad for them.

Instead of punishing people for being successful. The latter people should ponder on their foolishness, instead of blaming other people for being more intelligent.

Last time I check making good decisions about one's future is not a vice.
This is a problem in general. There were so many instances where the candidates were turned down because they couldn't write an algorithm from text book. The famous example being the guy who made Homebrew.

Reasons are below:
1) The existing assessment methods being used have been working for companies except in some cases.
2) There's no new way(yet) to assess candidates apart from the experience related questions. some companies use pair programming interviews which is by far the only different way which seems to be working.
3) Companies don't have time/resources to screen every candidate over phone, so they end up sending a link to hackerrank or some other programming questions site. And there are no custom assessments generated based on the candidate profile, rather these are very generic aptitude/algorithmic questions.
IIRC, the HP-15C used LU decomposition in its matrix math routines.
That was kind of my point. They're not stopping to give a requested lift.
Hi everyone,

I released my first app right here on HN roughly 2 years ago. With this third app, I take another shot at the problem in a whole new way. I would love to hear your feedback on it!
What if there's no supply chain, but rather the material are recycled from whatever axes or tools which travel during wars or conflicts?
Things change a lot during the project, I agree. But assuming everything will change and using that as an excuse not to plan at all sounds like a poor choice to me.

"In preparing for battle I have always found that plans are useless, but planning is indispensable." - Dwight D. Eisenhower
How hell does code review encourage those behaviours?

The best commits for code review are small ones. Nobody can be bothered with the big ones.
Could it be that the wave function is such that the time of its collapse is predetermined? I mean, could it be that future measurement attempts were already factored in at the moment the wave function was created? That way, there would be no information exchange between collapsed entangled particles. Rather, both would collapse at the same time as per their internal timer.
Churros de patata – Recetas de cocina
>Does anyone have an alternative argument as to why Facebook DOES NOT have the RIGHT to suppress and promote information based on it's own agenda?

The power Facebook has. Power needs to be controlled. As a lefty-ish person I'm not up in arms about this, but I see the problem.
Well I wonder if could be used near a river mouth? Since that water is going to be "thrown away" into the ocean anyway.
1. Support potentialities, presence, branding and readyness technical integrations (MS stacks, Active Directory),
but a lot of competition is going on.

Apache Jackrabbit - https://jackrabbit.apache.org/jcr/index.html

http://portals.apache.org/jetspeed-2/features.html

https://www.exoplatform.com/#platform

https://www.jalios.com/jcms/

https://www.alfresco.com/

https://ofbiz.apache.org/

https://www.drupal.org/

2. A higher level of abstraction seems beneficial.
True, code quality isn't as important as some people think. But I think that's there's different levels to indifference that can cause serious problems.

Code quality that simply reduces bugs and speeds maintenance is a lot less important than the kind of code quality that creates architecturally sound solutions and good products. Where I work, the lack of quality control/assurance affects so many things and has a visible detriment to the products.
It's a non-profit organization, hardly the kind of organization I would call a mafia. And yes, consumers can tell the difference between the different domain names. We already have hundreds for different countries, like .ca, .us, .uk, etc.

You're really looking for a problem where there is none.
Final “STEPS Toward the Reinvention of Programming” Paper [pdf]
Code reviews : good programming habits :: sexual reproduction : good evolutionary traits

They make them spread much much faster than they otherwise would.
I Can’t Believe It’s Not Unix
Well the project is bizarre and whimsical and I guess pretty expensive, but the way it's written about here makes me an enthusiastic fan. Well worth a read.
Code, models or records, whatever you call them in your programming language. Then use a doc comment tool. Whatever one is used in your language and best supported.
True that also others can register. Their mailing did mention "As newsletter subscribers, we want to give you exclusive early access and get your feedback" below a "HyperDev Private Beta" heading.

Personally, I don't think it will be Open Source, at least not soon, but who knows. I haven't seen an indication on the business model or long-term strategy - could be paid hosting for running applications with more resources (just like Heroku, OpenShift, Google App Engine and other PaaS providers), or paid add-ons for additional features (monitoring, analytics, logging, persistency, high-availability). Or perhaps it is an entry for their Kiln service, version control and source code hosting, but I'm just guessing here. Fog Creek is using different types of revenue models for their services.
True, if your software is well designed and modular then it's easy to contain necessary changes to a single subsystem. But a good design document would allow you just that - designate boundaries and interfaces between subsystems. I personally found out that writing an IDL (Protocol Buffers, Thrift or what have you) along your design document is very useful since it nicely bridges abstract concepts with actual code.
It might not be apparent from the examples provided in the article, but I would argue that this paradox is the primary polarizing force behind most people's morality disagreements.

A lot of the disagreements come down to the question "Well where do we draw the line?"
Continuous integration means you can work on multiple items at once and that you break up large feature dev into smaller chunks that get committed to master. For example, I might commit the data layer for a new big feature well before the UX, etc.

Code reviews mean that every time I want to integrate with master I've got to 'grab a lock' and schedule and wait for a code review.

What typically happens in these code review cultures is you tend to make monolithic commits (to minimize the # of code reviews you have to do) and you also tend to minimize diffs with the code base (to make the CR easier for the reviewer).
Hey, great idea. I'm still a bit of a Rust newb but I'm interested in helping if you have a starting point. Otherwise, I'll start looking into it myself.
I've personally (YMMV) found that going all the way to full TDD has resulted in the fewest delivery bugs (by a lot). Beats out unit testing for sure, but either of those are miles ahead of NO testing.
Yep, and design docs are the most important part of that planning for change. If you haven't planned the desired design, you can't see how circumstances are forcing you to change it, and what tradeoffs you'll be making to accommodate those circumstances.
Setting up secure boot on Arch Linux
And Fox News is totally unbiased.
More RDFey. You can elide them away by using a Context.

For example:
{ "@context": "http://schema.org/",
"@id": "#bigbang",
"@type": "Event",
"name": "The Big Bang"
}

is equivalent to
{ "@id": "#bigbang",
"@type": "http://schema.org/Event",
"http://schema.org/name": "The Big Bang"
}

This makes things extensible.
ozten[2] wrote:

"Last week VPRI[1] published the final "STEPS Toward the Reinvention of Programming" paper[this submssion].

Although it is 2012, it had been unavailable publicly until now. A great way to catch up on how FONC ended. It was worked on by many individuals being cited as part of HARC.

[1] http://vpri.org/html/writings.php

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11680238
I can't believe I'm saying this, but hacker news needs to take a lesson from what reddit is doing about this.
The Top 5 Crashes on iOS
Uh, those aren't mopeds. Mopeds, as their name implies, have pedals.
Free online service to hunt cybersquatting and typosquatting
If you read the article, nothing was being "suppressed". The sources mentioned are extremely tabloid-esque in nature.

This is only biased if we can provide concrete evidence that similar tabloid-esque publications that happened to align "left" of the political spectrum in the U.S. were allowed to pass while their political counterparts were passed up.

If the standard for journalism remained constant, but the sources that were "suppressed" largely happen to be conservative that doesn't seem like a problem with curation, it seems like a problem for the conservative media ecosystem.

I fully expect, despite adhering to basic scientific principles, to be downvoted yet again in this thread, because I already see a lot of the same names from the last time this article was posted and politically charged rhetoric (i.e. "leftist agenda").
I don't get why raising the wages implies that food will go up more than the average amount of tipping (~10-20%). Currently, if it's legal for their wages to be lower granted that they are supplemented by tips, if we raised the price of food at establishments with waitstaff by the average tip amount, the amount of money that the customer pays for food would be exactly the same (on average) as it currently is. Now if that money was diverted directly the the waitstaff (as it currently is) then we would have higher wages being paid to the waitstaff.

I recognize that some restaurants might raise prices by more than the average tip amount in order to increase profits, but that seems to be a separate concept from the one that I proposed. My proposition in no way requires that any restaurant raise the current cost that the customer pays (net money outflow from an average customer).

As for high wages not implying good service, I agree, and it's also a core axiom of why I believe tipping is inefficient, outdated, and cumbersome. But if we operate on the assumption that a good server gives good service in order to earn higher wages through tipping, I think we can also assume that a good server will give good service in order to continue to make his wage and not be fired as a result of treating customers poorly out of laziness.
Well, devils advocate: 2, 3 and 5 are all true for Boston and have been for years. Massachusetts does allow noncompetes, but at least anecdotally no one I know in the Boston tech/startup scene has been required to sign one.
Now try with more than one file like this:

mv *.bar *.baz

This is one place where Windows CMD works:

ren *.bar *.baz

It can't work on Unix shells because wildcard expansion is done before the program (mv) is invoked.
Seems to allow anyone to sign up... can you please explain how this differs from something like plnkr.io, codepen.io and JSBin, to name a few similar applications?
You are assuming that the only reason someone in a wheelchair might have to go between the sidewalk and the street is to access a crosswalk to cross the street. That is an incorrect assumption.

Vehicles that carry wheelchairs often load and unload the wheelchair from the street in the rear of the vehicle. Ramps in the middle of the street help people in wheelchairs to enter and leave such vehicles without having to go all the way to a crosswalk.
I've seen plenty of the ultra-hyped sales culture in LA and SF. Saying it is purely an East Coast phenomenon is completely misinformed.
So the problem you're talking about is how to properly manage (and coach) less experienced devs or devs who write messy code. While code reviews can tangentially deal with this, I think there are much more direct approaches to these problems than an umbrella code review policy.
We're talking about technology start-up hubs. Like it or not, this is the relevant comparison population. People creating those companies and their partners are unlikely to be working hourly minimum wage jobs.
What's the news? Electric mopeds have been around for several years now.

(A couple of years ago I almost ran into one when I absentmindedly walked on the street because they are completely silent. Their silence makes me wish gas mopeds were outlawed (at least in residential areas))
The /dev/kvm API has a hard dependency on union support, and rustc hasn't yet implemented RFC1444, so I hadn't planned to attempt to create a KVM crate until that point. Once that happens, I'll start building prototypes and pushing them to github and Cargo.

In the meantime, here's an article I wrote on the /dev/kvm API, including how to drive it directly from a small C program: https://lwn.net/Articles/658511/ (edit: fixed URL)
Search, View Online More Than 700 U.S. College/University Commencement Addresses
I think you might be missing my point. Even if they have the best of intentions for collecting the data, once they have it, anyone who has access to it can use it for evil.
Information About Trending Topics
Ruby reaches its best rank ever among programming languages
There's a line to walk for sure. When I code review a line that looks like this:

$foo=fn1($bar) &&$baz = fn2 ($qux)

I always send it back. Do I look pedantic? Probably, but to me consistency is important. It's about caring about what you're doing. If I see a line like this, I assume the person who wrote it doesn't pay a lot of attention to detail and I pay closer attention to the rest of their commit. I mean, if you can't be troubled to set your IDE preferences to the team/project's rules, what's that say about you?
Pointing out a gender discrepancy in a thread that doesn't discuss gender at all is "unsubstantive".

Adds nothing to the conversation and is actually incorrect, as male is the default gender for pronouns.
For big companies that benefit from being able to say they have lots of users there is a big incentive not to be good at finding fraudulent accounts. I worked in Big Data Analytics at one of these companies $10B+. We were separate from the fraud department. They'd filter out the fraud accounts and we'd have to re-filter because their behavior was so out of whack it would mess up our analytics. We tried to move our filters upstreams and teach the fraud dept how to identify these accounts but absolutely no-one was interested. Also it's common to have bonuses tied to user numbers.