skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Go is obviously pretty god awful when it comes to design when viewed strictly as a language. The language is mind numbingly boring and restrictive. The reason why people are interested in go (at least IMO) is because of stuff that isn't really about the language design. They are interested in the subsecond compile times out of the box. They are interested in one of the best standard libraries out there, a static binary that has subsecond start up times, a GC that doesn't require lots of tuning, a language spec so simple and a standard formatter so most code looks the same, etc.

The language it's self has no beauty and is not fun or interesting like scala. But I still love it and would totally base my company on it if I was planning on hiring thousands of developers and training them to use it. I would be scared of doing that with scala.
Rust RFC: native C-compatible unions via contextually recognized keyword union
This is the real question. It is easy to admit you made a mistake when there isn't much in the way of consequences.
Nope, Boaty McBoatface[0]

[0] http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/05/boa...
Havent heard about Boaty McBoatface?
And those same ones commit stuff like the LoC I'm looking at right now that returns the results of a ternary, and there's a fucking bang symbol in front of every boolean, topped off with a bang preceding the parens around that ternary (IOW, some of those bangs should cancel out, and aren't needed). I ask myself, "how did this escape code review?" and the answer is probably that the senior dev who wrote it thumped the junior dev reviewing it with something along the lines of "that's how real Java devs do it", or something. I dunno, just guessing based on personalities. Same dev that self-admits he hasn't written unit tests before, yet argues with me (who has written thousands) about how to write unit tests.

Though I wonder if what you describe isn't just plain ol' bike shedding. I've seen it plenty in code reviews. Super sharp dev who generally writes great code puts a commit up for review, and someone feels like they ought to have some input, and because the code is otherwise solid they pick on grammar.
Theory of Educational Mind-Set Is Often Misunderstood
A reference to the new polar ship that was publicly voted to be named 'Boaty McBoatface', but the science minister is too stuck up to roll with it[0].

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11642618
I know very little about the S.E.C., but it seems odd that an agency tasked with combating "Ponzi frauds, insider trading and accounting fraud" would be unable to obtain a criminal warrant.

Are those not criminal investigations that may lead to criminal charges for those under investigation? Why then should a search warrant not be required?

Perhaps this is a quirk (or a feature) of the way the agency is intended to operate?
I've said much about this topic, as you can see in my comments. I've since thought about what should be done and I've come to a simple conclusion: Facebook is Mark Zuckerburg's business and enterprise. He can do with it what he wants, just as any business or enterprise has the right to conduct their own business. If he wants to use it to push the a globalist and left agenda, by all means he has the right to do that.

It's up to us, the consumer, to vote with our feet. I haven't used Facebook in years and I'm certainly glad not to be using it now that this comes to light as I disagree with it's agenda.

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?
There is a very important piece of history left out of this article and comments. The Nazis hired IBM to do the bulk of their computing. They may have used the Z3, but my uderstanding is that they didn't use it, though since it had such a narrowly specified field of use they could have used it and IBM wouldn't have known the difference. But the fact is that IBM supplied, at the very least, the vast majority of computer tech for the Nazis.

I'd be very interested in a detailed comparison between whatever IBM was using at the time, the capabilities of the Z3, and whether it could have been modified to do the types of work IBM did. IBM's primary notoriety about all this is that they helped the Nazis to locate members of groups to be exterminated, but I expect that was a small part of what they did for the Nazis. But no IBM execs faced the Nuremburg Tribunals.

Also, I think Zuse at least somewhat well known in the U.S. The most basic computer books I have seen all have something about him. The information is available and common in the U.S. in elementary computer books like they use to teach schoolkids what computers are. I've read a fair amount of stuff about him in elementary school computer texts that I got in thrift stores and like that. The basic information about who he was and what he did is commonly available. Details are less common, so when I saw the post I immediately checked it out, whereas I more commonly open up pages in new tabs and read them after I've done my shopping through the feed. But the reason I recognized the name of the man and the machine is because of elementary school books that I picked up in a thrift store in 99.
More talking about applications where the matrices are large, like statistics, machine learning (but I repeat myself), signal processing, etc. In games pretty much all matrices are around 4x4, instead of millions by millions.
Really, please stop, both of you.
Beyond Offline – Custom service workers to expand your browser
I think it will always depend on the team. Process X might be a savior to team Y, but completely screw team A even if team A == team Y (javascript truthiness here).

On the flip side I think you can also say the potential downsides of excessive code review are significantly less then the potential downsides of zero code review.

I dunno.
Comparably's new equity calc helps tech workers figure out the % they should get
So I know something like this (or AWS Lambda) is good for quickly putting up an endpoint and scaling it to theoretically unlimited nodes.

Could anybody shed some light on how this might be used in practice? It seems at the point that you have multiple endpoints, you may as well just deploy a full application.
Note that I only said "enforce". A country can claim whatever they want within their own borders, but cannot really enforce them across the border.

Even with the laptop warranty case, if some small retailer from Country A shipped a laptop to Scandinavia, but didn't uphold a 2 year warranty, the Scandinavian governments would not be able to force the warranty to be upheld. They can make whatever local judgments they want, but none of them would touch Country A without international agreements in place.
People seem to be assuming that AsicBoost won't be licensed, but I don't see why not. If they're smart the license fee will be around half the speedup so that it's still rational to pay.

There is some precedent in Prof. Tyrell's optimized FPGA miner that charged a 5% license fee. http://www.tricone-mining.com/ (And I don't remember anyone trying to fork him out.)
The Delusions of “Heroic” Innovation
And also a good template for naming things! Thanks.
Your Personal Archiving Project: Where Do You Start?
For me continuous integration and refactoring have been the most important practices in keeping a code base clean, robust and agile.

Code review cultures tend to encourage the opposite of these agile practices: monolithic commits, infrequent integration, and minimal diffs -- in other words, practices that tend to result in lesser productivity.
VaporOS Desktop, a SteamOS based desktop, is here
I wrote my senior thesis on this topic when I was completing my philosophy major. One of the best texts on the subject is "Vagueness" by Williamson.

It's an arcane but super interesting topic that actually has wide implications. It's also IMO one of the most thorny problems in contemporary philosophy.

edit: I'm currently busy but can come back later to answer questions if anyone is interested.

http://www.amazon.com/Vagueness-Problems-Philosophy-Timothy-...
If you guarantee static dispatch, then you haven't solved the expression problem, which requires some sort of dynamic dispatch (even a switch/pattern match). The only way to address the expression problem and provide zero time overhead in practice (though it can't be guaranteed) is with a JIT/profile-guided optimization.

This, BTW, is why I find Rust's use of the term "zero-cost abstractions" confusing. Where Rust guarantees zero-cost it does so for weak abstractions only, and where it provides stronger abstractions, their cost may be higher than in other languages (because Rust's compiler is still behind on optimizations). It's a little like a restaurant advertising "free food", when they're really only offering free popcorn at the bar, while their steaks are rather pricey. It may be a great offering, but the copy is a little confusing.
The quantum information did exist all along; it just 'leaked' into the environment through a process known as decoherence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence

This is why I object to classical analogies using envelopes and cards and pennies that end with "Yeah QM is strange". It's really a fundamental physical/mathematical effect, and it's much less intuitive if you make a mapping to objects in a classical world. I often feel conceptual maps to information worlds (like books and the internet) are more intuitive.
That's better than simply optimizing for clicks probably.
The easiest is just fix it, even though its annoying.

Slightly clearer comments isn't a bad thing? Why not fix it in the two seconds it takes to.

No one's going to repremanded or promoted on code reviews.

Im a senior dev(ops) and don't mind if I get code review full of really minor issues by junior devs try to prove themselves. Every little issue fixed, makes a it a little bit better.
I get that inverting a matrix can be computationally intensive, but what's the alternative?

"What if you have to solve Ax = b for a lot of different b‘s? Surely then it’s worthwhile to find A-1. No. The first time you solve Ax = b, you factor A and save that factorization. Then when you solve for the next b, the answer comes much faster."

I don't get it, although I'm not a numerics expert so maybe I'm missing something. He says, "the first time you solve Ax = b, you factor A and save that factorization."

Great. But don't you then use the factorization to determine the inverse of A (LAPACK example: call dgetrf to get the factorization, then call dgetri to compute the inverse using the factorization)? Maybe what he's talking about is going over my head. How else would you solve Ax = b for x, if not by computing the inverse of A (assuming A is a 3x3 or 4x4)?
Well, maybe applicable to the predominantly narcissistic demographic, but brands definitely are extorted - no doubt about it!
It's so refreshing to see good 'ol blue links, that are underlined and stand out accordingly from the rest of the copy. So many sites try to get too fancy with links nowadays and you can't even tell what is a link and what isn't.
I'm sure it's only a matter of time before someone puts this online in a format easily played with. Looking forward to that
Evidence that this is the most accurate parser is here;
the previous approach mentioned is a March 2016 paper, "Globally Normalized Transition-Based Neural Networks," http://arxiv.org/abs/1603.06042

"On a standard benchmark consisting of randomly drawn English newswire sentences (the 20 year old Penn Treebank), Parsey McParseface recovers individual dependencies between words with over 94% accuracy, beating our own previous state-of-the-art results, which were already better than any previous approach."

From the original paper, "Our model achieves state-of-the-art accuracy
on all of these tasks, matching or outperforming
LSTMs while being significantly faster.
In particular for dependency parsing on the Wall
Street Journal we achieve the best-ever published
unlabeled attachment score of 94.41%."

This seems like a narrower standard than described, specifically being better at parsing the Penn Treebank than the best natural language parser for English on the Wall Street Journal.

The statistics listed on the project GitHub actually contradict these claims by showing the original March 2016 implementation has higher accuracy than Parsey McParseface.
Grunt phones were a thing long before GWOT, it isn't even a case of reinvention - an old timer noticed the missing phones and corrected the problem. I don't know if the capability was intentionally dropped and then reversed, but if it was then this exact same thing happened in Vietnam with cannonless F-4s - because dogfighting was dead...
Yes, by containing the payload and decompressing it.

The difference is that by not sandboxing it, that malicious file could also cause its payload to be executed in the permission scope of the decompressor.
What about all the extra server round trips that have to happen when you build for the 1997 web? Do those save power?
That sounds like copyright.
Ask HN: Which hackers do you look up to the most?
(Hackers as in expert programmers or security researchers, not venture capitalists or anyone of that ilk.)
Tidy Spring Services
How to Find a DBA Job
> The arXiv is great because it puts everybody at the same level. It ensures that the best ideas have a chance to come out, independently from their origin.

With arXiv as a basis for comparison, what is your impression of what the other / older methods of dissemination overvalue and undervalue? For example, my impression is that the other methods favor top U.S. research institutions, but maybe that's realistic; maybe the older methods actually undervalue top institutions (despite my egalitarian fantasies). Maybe gender or experience or position or scope or novelty or other things are over/undervalued.

I do notice that in scientific research, institution is almost a surname in people's identities. It's always 'Jane Doe of Harvard'; it seems like it might as well be 'Jane Doe Harvard'.
It's already available here - https://github.com/tensorflow/models/tree/master/syntaxnet

echo 'Bob brought the pizza to Alice.' | syntaxnet/demo.sh

Input: Bob brought the pizza to Alice .
Parse:
brought VBD ROOT
+-- Bob NNP nsubj
+-- pizza NN dobj
| +-- the DT det
+-- to IN prep
| +-- Alice NNP pobj
+-- . . punct
In general there are no shortcuts, and when the matrix A is not small (e.g. m x n with m,n << 100), you don't want to invert A, especially if you are only interested in x (from A x = b). Instead, use numerical minimization schemes like conjugated gradients and variants thereof or Quasi-Newton methods (BFGS). Combined with preconditioning as well as regularization or denoising this usually yields good results. Compressive sampling methods (total variation regularization) have received lots of attention in the last ten years.
A big part of the value of AWS Lambda is that it allows you to glue together other AWS services with custom application logic, similar to stored procedures in a database. Without the other AWS services and the event triggers they expose to Lambda, "serverless" is a lot less interesting.
Color Tool
Seriously? I thought companies fight for people with good skill set and i see recruiters bothering me on Linkedin all the time. Did you try applying for start ups?
Getting CPU info with D (the D language)
I feel like this can be argued so many ways. For instance, while code review might block some changes from being introduced into the system, it also does have more benefits than the "fluffy" ones you mentioned. Maybe an engineer that has more experience with the codebase can point out a way of doing something that is more in line with what the team's style is (earlier move toward standardized code vs letting people do what they want). Maybe you missed a utility function that already achieves what some of your code does. Maybe there's not a bug, but again a more experienced dev sees something that can be optimized and will save time in the future that would be spent on tracing system performance issues. The idea that we need to move ultra fast as devs... I think that is necessary in some cases, but I'm not convinced that taking some time to code review tasks is as expensive as you suggested. I mean even reviewing 1000 lines of code should take no more than 30 minutes. And if it looks entirely confusing and hard to follow, then maybe it's something to revisit because I guarantee you're gonna be spending longer if you have to go back and refactor/extend messy and unclean code that technically works. I think the key here is to catch things that stand out and not review the minutae.

This is just my opinion of the matter. On the topic of team building, I don't really care for all that stuff. Unit tests w/ CI and periodic refactoring are great for revisiting design decisions. Code reviews are great for catching bad design decisions early on, though so use it as a tool.
I'm interested in exploring what makes a build tool good. What does SBT do right and what do the others you mentioned do wrong?
The difficulty will be in assigning responsibility for these accidents. Will autonomous car manufacturers carry the insurance burden for their software or the consumer? Will insurance companies have to evaluate whether vehicles have been "jailbroken"?
It's really nice to have access to these kinds of tools. I am sure some folks from Google are checking this, so thank you.

Analysis of the structure of a piece of text is the first step to understanding its meaning. IBM are doing some good work in this area.
http://www.alchemyapi.com/products/demo/alchemylanguage

Anything in the pipeline for this project to help with classifying sentiment, emotion etc. from text?
I've pondered the same question and I really have no clear answer.

But I also think you're not obligated to provide as much as you think. You have to provide source (easy enough), but you really don't have to actually give them all the tools to build it do you? Be nice and point to the Yocto build you used and say you got your gcc toolsuite from there.

As for installation, all you really need to do is provide a way to replace the libraries. I wouldn't give out an entire rebuild/reflash suite or anything. Make a hidden screen in the program somewhere to let you mount a USB drive and replace the libQt?.so.4 files. And that's it. If they brick it, you shrug and say "not my deal".

In all my time I've never encountered anyone that actually wanted to do any of this. It's all a formality, especially when Qt literally does everything you need. I'm not even really sure what you would want to hack on Qt in the first place.
Problem is that when you use C you get the low level coders on board relatively easily. Not always the case in other languages
That's the minimum wage where your employer doesn't have to pay overtime if you work more than 40 hours a week, not the minimum wage an employer is allowed to pay you. It seems kind of silly to say "sure, you can afford a decent lifestyle as long as you have two well-paying jobs".
FBI has 80,000 files on possible Saudi links to 9/11
Sounds like common lisp might be what you are looking for then (depending on what you think "interoperable at a C ABI level" exactly entails I suppose. https://common-lisp.net/project/ecl/main.html)
Science fiction author Keith Laumer had a few ideas along these lines as far back as the 1960s:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolo_%28tank%29
I'm interested in exploring what makes a build tool bad or good. What do you dislike about SBT?
That was going to be my comment on the title. If your code reviews are "...just for catching bugs", you're doing it wrong. I put another comment in this thread describing a crappy line of code. It works (I wrote the test for it), but my...$DEITY could it have been easier to read, and made more maintainable. But it apparently sailed right through code review.

Like you, I'd say that code review isn't for catching bugs at all. Is it readable? Can some Shmoe off the street who is hired to maintain make sense of it? How's the complexity? Do I need to maintain eight different states in my head to grok it? Et. al. Now, a team can help prevent potential bugs (either outright as the code stands, or bugs introduced later when someone tries to maintain it and it's a pasta derivative) with code reviews. I mean, didn't we run the unit tests we wrote before we submitted it for code review? Why are we finding bugs just by looking at the code?
I realize that it is unpopular, but civility would not have made my point. I appreciate your input.
You would solve e.g.

min_x* ( ||A x* - b|| (+\lamba regularization(x*) )
I'm actually serious when I say this a huge opportunity for Twitter. Twitter has the possibility for so much randomness, which I would say is good for the health of the world. Its a public free for all. Facebook, as Stratchery [1] and others have said, facilitates a group think world. You interact with your friends who all think like you.

I'm an investor in Facebook and no longer one in Twitter, but I can't think of anything more I'd like than to lose than my money on Facebook.

1. https://stratechery.com/2016/the-real-problem-with-facebook-...
Silicon [some locale]!! Silicon [some locale]!!

If you are being envied, that usually means you have something to be grateful for, I suppose.
They don't need to build a desktop program for Windows 7 when they can show video in a browser.

The advantage of building a Universal app using Windows Runtime is that it will run on Windows 8/8.1/10, Xbox One and Windows Phone. That's more than half a billion users....
I am not a mathematician, but simply based on the fact that beautiful/simpler answers to questions seem to get closer to the ultimate truth, the current state of large-dimension matrix inversion is far from the ideal possible solution, because it is ugly as hell.
I'm interested in exploring what makes a build tool good. Which design choices does SBT choose that makes it amazing?
All that other stuff impacts battery life in a huge way. Those variables matter. You can't just remove them, call it a "worst case scenario", and walk away. That is not valid.

When a reputable site like Anandtech reviews a laptop, they don't force it to maximum performance mode, because nobody that cares about battery life would ever do that. It's testing a scenario that _doesn't matter_.

In fact, not only is it not the default, but maximum performance mode doesn't even _show_ by default-- you need to expand a "show additional plans" dropdown in the power control panel to see it. Opera went to the trouble to do that, and it was not by accident.
Opera’s desktop browser promises to extend battery life by up to 50%
Our busiest file is 400K checked out and about 1MB for the history file lz4 compressed. Uncompressed is 2.2M and the weave is 1.7M of that.

Doesn't seem bad to me. The weave is big for binaries, we imported 20 years of Solaris stuff once and the history was 1.1x the size of the checked out files.
Not only that, but now you have a solid natural language parser to tell whether you need the optional 'e' before the 'y' in the first word!
I'm curious: do you think Facebook's anti-fraud measures are effective?