skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Men should not need sensitivity training to interact with women at work.

I know it feels good to take zero tolerance policies, and we all do it (why do you think we have so many people in prison in this country).

But..maybe he is some kid in his early- or mid-20's and has very little workplace experience outside of small startups working mostly with other males his age. He may have never had the opportunity to understand why this kind of behavior makes a workplace uncomfortable for those on the receiving end (and others as well).

Firing him is obviously one way to teach that lesson, and will not only lose him this job but possibly make it difficult to find another. Giving him an opportunity to learn it through training is another.

I do, though, think it's probably unfair to make an outcast of every young male who isn't born with a deep understanding of why you need to keep your attraction to women restrained once you start a grown-up job, just because you were born that way. At that point in your life (if I'm remembering correctly, it's been quite a while ;), most of your energy and focus has been in trying to attract whatever you are attracted to, and there are often no blunt cues indicating "hey, this situation is different from what you are used to".

As patio11 said, though, lawyer first if you want to keep the business alive.
If you're on Chrome, you might like the "Tab Snooze" extension:

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/tab-snooze/pdiebia...
First of all I love chefwatson. There is some interesting science out there too: http://phys.org/news/2015-03-network-science-tools-spices-in...

The bean water thing is a bit different. Turning something that was basically garbage (or pig feed) into something that might have a lot of new and interesting uses, is a bit beyond Watson today.
In actuality I don't see much difference between his stance and Sanders's. They both want to retrench. As for going after Isis and or Russia, it seems that would be congruent with "defending the homeland" which isn't contradictory with respect to disengaging from foreign wars.

In other words keep the homeland safe without initiating unprovoked wars and demand allies pay their fair share of expenditures for keeping _their_ territorial integrity. So western Europe, Japan, S Korea, Turkey, Egypt, Israel, etc.
How are the people supporting the entertainers getting money? By doing their own entertaining?
Oh, whoops. I signed up but didn't realize it was only for iOS. That's unfortunate, I was interested in checking it out. I should have read more before clicking the link, that's on me.
Make it USABLE. USABLE. Study its USABILITY.

The world doesn't need more crummy unusable software.
I thought this was an excellent post. C has changed in lots of important ways in the last 10-20 years. The changes are both convenient (far better tooling) and inconvenient (much less forgiving of undefined behavior). Those of us who use C professionally have had to pick up most of these changes by osmosis. This was a really great run-down on how you'd bring a newbie up to speed with the state of the field.
I agree, it is a daunting problem.

Another problem is that it's hard to experiment in the browser; the stakes are very high when bugs or poorly-conceived ideas quite literally break the internet for users. As a result, the development cycle is righteously slow (~18 weeks), the cost of landing code in Firefox is righteously high, and it's just a difficult environment to try new things.

On Test Pilot we aren't trying to build the solution, we're trying to find it. It's a different model of product development than we've historically had at Mozilla. In this case, side tabs are the start, but you can expect new features and concepts to start coming down the pipeline as we start gathering feedback and data about how people use them.
I like my people to do more than prototype for this kind of work. It's probably a semantics argument, but we prototype as part of design and intend for it to be trashed/rewritten, whereas what I was speaking to above is real development work that will be used, definitely not polished but 'works' enough to keep moving forward.
What did you mean about their strictness? Does Ubuntu not push out fixes for critical problems like this except at certain times?
Probationary periods are basically fictional unless you've laid out some formalized termination process.
I think you have one ;)

https://news.ycombinator.com/bestcomments

http://themacro.com/articles/2016/04/hacker-news-highlights-...
That's good to hear. Too many Linux -> OS X ports don't have the care or thought given to them to make them good. For example, Inkscape not only commits all the violations I described above, it has an excruciatingly long startup time and requires opening a separate XQuartz instance (an X11 equivalent) to run.
Hey, that's actually the wrong link for the search add-on.

What you've downloaded is a deprecated earlier prototype that may not work at all--you're looking at the wrong github repo. (I just took down the built add-on, so other people don't make the same mistake.)

Test Pilot is about reconnecting desktop Firefox with its community; it's about more than just whatever add-ons are available today. We have feedback forms now, we'll have Discourse user forums integrated soon, and I hope we can eventually start building ideas that come from the community, with the help of the community. You should give it a try :-)
I think we agree on the most important points here.
The Oracle Data Guard restore failed. SFDC is now looking at fairly severe options that include: data loss and/or 24 hours or more of additional downtime.
That quote certainly describes my view of the legacy of Steve Jobs at the cold, pragmatic core.
I don't know who dang is, and I don't go on HN enough for it to really matter to me. I'm not really part of the HN culture, I just come here for the occasional new software that might be of interest to me. It's likely there's a lot of people in the same boat including the person you responded to.
The core of what makes C elegant is that basically everything that looks atomic is atomic, in the sense of taking O(1) space and memory (at least until C99 introduced its abominable variable-length arrays, and perhaps some other features I'm forgetting about).

Absent macro obfuscation, it is easy to reason about what a snippet of C does and how it translates down to machine code, even taken out of context. In C++, something as innocent as "i++;" could allocate heap memory and do file I/O.

The downside is that C code can become quite verbose, and to do anything useful, it takes a lot of ground work to basically set up your own DSL of utility functions and data structures. For certain applications, this is an acceptable tradeoff and gives a great deal of flexibility. I think teaching this bottom-up approach to programming can be quite useful - in a way, it mirrors the SICP approach, albeit from a rather different angle.

The question is, why are there not more languages that have the same paradigm, but also add basic memory safety, avoid spurious undefined behavior, provide namespaces, with a non-stupid standard library, etc.?
There might be a limit to how much fun you can get from learning, and I'd say most of the fun comes from the novelty of it. Figuring stuff out is nice, but education might be a source of enjoyment after a certain point (which I think is why "melancholia" was chiefly associated with philosophers). It doesn't last forever.

But what if it isn't where we wander off to, inside or outside, that matters but the wanderlust itself? Maybe the main hindrance to human happiness, once some living standards are satisfied, is just our inherent restlessness. And maybe Pascal was right: maybe all of our miseries indeed derive from not being able to sit in a quiet room alone.
With a karma score over 6000, I'm surprised you haven't already noticed that this forum is completely and utterly lacking in humor. I'm even more surprised that you claim your humorous post is being upvoted, instead of massively downvoted, which is exactly what happens any time I try to make a joke around here. (Your upvotes will probably turn into downvotes soon.) It doesn't surprise me at all that the responder totally failed to see the humor in your post. I've completely given up on making humorous posts here; on other tech discussion sites, I do pretty well, and will get modded up to "+5 Funny", but not here. So I just stick to facts and logic when I'm on here. Even Mr. Spock had a better sense of humor than the denizens of this forum.
Let me add the perspective of an old dinosaur that learned to program before C had been invented.

C maps nearly 1:1 onto simple processor and memory models, and most importantly, gets out of your way and lets you get on with solving your system programming problems. Before C, just about any meaningful system programming task required a dive into assembly language. In that context, C was a huge win. It is also what makes C the langauge of choice for embedded development today.

Of course, system programming problems are not the bread-and-butter of most develpers today -- and a good thing, too. We can now build on top of solid systems and concentrate on delivering value to the customer at much higher levels of abstraction: the levels of abstraction that are meaningful to customers.

I dearly love Python because it allows me to work at levels of abstraction that are meaningful to the user's problem. I dearly love C when I want to wiggle a pin on an ARM Cortex-M3.

In my mind, CS education should start by teaching problem decomposition and performance analysis using a language like Python that provides high levels of abstraction and automated memory management. Then, just like assembly language was a required CS core course back in my day, students today should spend a semester implementing and measuring the performance of some of the data structures that they have been getting "for free" so that they understand computing at a fundamental level. Some will go on to be systems programmers, and will spend more time at the C level. Some won't ever look at C again, and that is OK.

In the end, CS education is about how to solve problems through the application of mechanical computation. The languages will evolve as our understanding of the problems evolve and our ability to create computing infrastructure evolves. CS educcation should be about creating people who can contribute to (and keep up with) that evolution.
It's definitely based on my approach, but it's missing the concept a bit. The only way this approach gets entropy is if you cross two clocks at very different speeds, and get randomness from the mismatched tolerances. For example, using a computer's microsecond accurate clock to measure a human's 100 millisecond scale behavior yields bits, because we can't be microsecond accurate even if we try.

The bitflipping I was exploring involved matching the CPU clock (nanosecond scale) with the real time clock (millisecond scale). This of course has some risk because the OS can easily implement the latter with the former. And in fact, in this implementation, that's actually what happens -- he's measuring the number of bit flips at nanosecond accuracy. Output is distinguishable from PRNG, as seen elsewhere.

If I remember right somebody did break my "Defcon Challenge" with Firefox.
I can, but I won't build in the hot new thing for the sake of the hot new thing alone.

What that tends to mean is that when I'm looking for a new job, my skills at old company are in old thing, while everyone is excited about hot new thing. This is typically most obvious with javascript libraries.
You can adjust what events trigger an email at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
Tutorial On Designing/Building A PCB (Using FOSS)
> it may create a very little value by increasing market efficiency a bit, but mostly it's playing a zero-sum game.

How would you go about quantifying that? May it not be the case that gains from market efficiency increases far outweigh the "cost" of hedge funds?
Meanwhile, I've seen way too much code from people who're good at building things, but not engineering. And lost countless nights to keeping these rickety structures alive long enough that we could fix the most egregious issues.

Sure, build something, anything, to show it can be done. THEN MAKE SURE ITS ACTUALLY STABLE.

And then realize that building stuff, and understanding how to build it well, both matter.
So, the one big atom solved two problems for me.

First, in Reagent/FRP, I was updating a view based on the value of an atom. This meant I had different default values in different atoms. The big atom let me unify where I stored values, and reuse values, without a performance hit. Second, the big atom made storing application state trivial: you can just throw the map/record in Redis or something.

However, the big atom is just a big map, and keys can be paired with any value, so it is not enforcing types. From a Haskell perspective (where I understand the program almost falls out of the types you define!), this probably does increase the scope for error.

This can be mitigated with Schema (which I never used effectively), logging changes to the console, and being able to see your default map easily (like, there's a map in one file which I load upfront, so I can see what values are there).

I'd welcome hearing from anyone with a more advanced or precise use of re-frame state.
Would /r/bestofHNcomments work as a subreddit?
Forgotten Mayan city 'discovered' in Central America by 15-year-old boy
I guess the same ones who imagine that all the employees have an employment contract.
There's been a lot of unusual features I've been hoping Redis will support but obviously given their edge-case nature it's unlikely that they'd ever be implemented.

This is great to see. Instead of cluttering up the core engine with junk people can mix in their own functionality.
Google her comments on Chaz Bono and don't tell me she's not transphobic. BTW, these comments happen to be in a YT clip that's not some weird splice of individual words. It's her being asked her opinion on trans people like Chaz. Not only does she deadname him, but also misgenders him. If that's not transphobic I don't know what is then.

As for "intellectual isolation," she's not owed a hearing. If she wanted a hearing from little old me then she shouldn't be a bigot towards my kind (trans). It's not my job to listen to bigots. It's also not my job to coddle intellectuals that get snubbed online. It shows some great insecurity if people like her are so concerned about people just ignoring her ilk by not going to their lectures, read their essays, and so on. I wish they would admit that freedom of association cuts both ways. Don't like trans people? Then don't expect trans people to associate with you. You can't demand our minds and ears for your use. The audience isn't passive. It's a give and take. I guess her in mind, and the mind of folks like her, it seems as if the very idea the audience can/will push back by not accepting their ideas is lost on her.

Also, I want some real examples of actual censorship. I don't want this bull dung where a private association decided to not invite her or her friends to a lecture series. You're not owed an audience as I stated before. It's annoying that people are getting looser with the word censorship these days. Unless you're getting death threats, have been put on a black list (illegal in the US last time I checked), or otherwise having people actively block any/all venues of expression you're not being censored.

All these articles seem to smack of entitlement to a hearing from people of my generation and demographic. Guess what? She ain't owed that hearing like I've stated before. When she can show me a bill for services rendered then she can get my mind and ears. Until then she can stuff it.
https://github.com/angular/angular/issues/7482
> The industrial revolution eliminated 60% of the jobs and gave birth to communism/socialism/a reaction to the wear of workers by a powerful people. ... Subsequent revolutions also gave much more leverage to the "guy in his garage in the Silicon Valley".

They are not analogous. People are expensive, inefficient and unreliable when compared to machines (where they can even be compared). Each new "revolution" will try to get rid of as many workers as it can. There won't be new jobs for the people that have little or no education. Hell, there may not even be new jobs for people with education. Silicon Valley is the perfect example how this process will go down: new riches for a few people concentrated in very rich metropolises. Where is Namibia's Spotify? In Sweden. There's nothing wrong with this btw, old age technologists used to envision a time where technology freed human beings from the shackles of work but capitalism is in conflict with this idea. The stewards of capitalism need the "losers" and the result will be a lot of misery until we figure out how to accommodate all the unemployed.
I have heard only good things about Schema, and I probably should have invested the time to understand and use it more intensively.
They don't expect to lose more money on this than they'd have payed for the advertising this provides.
The Roman Empire largely fell because they were overexposed militarily. So one could equally argue that their hyper-masculinism was their downfall - not their lack of competitiveness.

If they showed more prudence and were less aggressive at everyone around them they would have been better prepared for the attacks from the Goths and barbarians.

Additionally, they were overextended financially as well which left them in a weak state. Over-extension is the result of highly risky behavior, which is comparable to the cowboy Wall St jockeys of the present era which are definitely a modern masculine image.

Avoiding the extremes seems to be where progress is made. Being neither overly aggressive nor so weak you get walked over by the tougher kids on the block. The boring times in history were great times for economies (see 1990s, post-WW2 America), there were still some military adventurism but mostly short-lived minor disputes (Korea, Desert Storm).

Modern statecraft is largely about economics today, not militarism. For example, I would doubt the US could fall from a lack of military prowess, while still totally dominating the world financial markets. Money goes a much longer way than guns and heart these days.

Just look at how Russia's economy is doing these days - despite being the toughest kid on the block. Even if they succeed at war mongering it could only take them so far before the west could obliterate their citizens quality of life without firing a shot.
> central control of the code

That's just an excuse to not implement backwards compatibility in the protocol. Central control is also a security risk, as we've seen recently with Apple and the FBI. If the code is controlled centrally, the FBI (or whomever) only has to strong-arm one target.

> gets a notification and can click one button to update their copy

That sounds like you're trying to keep the user in control, which is great. I haven't head of Sandstorm before, but it sounds interesting.

Have you considered the problem of forced updates? I'm not sure there is a good way to protect against the FBI trying something similar to the recent drama with Apple, where they order you to force a "special" update on {someone,everyone}.
I get what you are saying about it being easier to move from one walled garden to another (based on the evidence that those moves happen more often than moves from between email providers)... but there is such a huge caveat that those moves are never a move chosen by an individual.

I cannot, as an individual, choose to move from one walled garden messenger app to another - if I do, I cannot message those people that don't. I am stuck going along with the group. This is ok in a lot cases (when the group's priorities line up with mine), but sometimes the things that are important to the group are different than the things that are important to me. For example, I might prioritize security over ease of use, but since the group doesn't, I will never get my wish, and I am stuck on a service that sacrifices security for ease of use.
I didn't know their was an ITC blog: http://www.itcblog.com/creative-files-new-337-complaint-rega...

U.S. Patent No. 6,928,433 (the ‘433 patent)
There are browser extensions that mitigate both of your reasons to delay reading the comments. I use hckr news (https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/hckr-news/mnlaodle...), which does the following:

- Highlight any comments added since the last time you loaded the page with a little vertical orange bar.

- Change the hckrnews.com comment count display to show the number of unread comments in addition to the number of total comments.
Great is a relative term. But, can you name an OS, especially a UNIX, that is better in the general case? By "general case", I mean, good for just about anything, even if there's something better for some niche or role. Also, take into account the world we live in: More computing happens on servers and phones than on desktops and laptops; and judge the OS based on how it's doing in those roles.

I sincerely consider Linux a great UNIX. Probably the best UNIX that's existed, thus far. There are warts, sure. Technically, Solaris had (and still has, in IllumOS and SmartOS) a small handful of superior features and capabilities (at this point one can list them on one hand, and one could also list some "almost-there" similar techs on Linux). But, I assume you've used Solaris (or some other commercial UNIX) enough to have an opinion...can you honestly say you enjoyed working on it more than Linux? The userspace on Solaris was always drastically worse than Linux, unless you installed a ton of GNU utilities, a better desktop, etc. But, Linux brought us a UNIX we could realistically use anywhere, and at a price anyone could afford. That's a miracle for a kid that grew up lusting after an Amiga 3000UX (because it was the closest thing to an SGI Indy I could imagine being able to afford).
Threema isn't affected by this as it uses a randomly generated ID as unique identifier, not your phone number.
The term "federation" has been overused, misused and abused. At it's base layer, Federation can be thought of as process that unifies things and the people using the things in a way that is reproducible at a future date. Within the context of the Internet and Software (the cloud), Federation should mean "federated use of computer resources" and extend the three primitives of the cloud to be used by all, at will:

1. Compute - allows the transformation of one type of data to another.

2. Storage - allows the storage of data.

3. Network - allows the transfer of data from compute to storage, or vice versa.

Federation's historic constituents have been standards, payments and identity. In order for cloud federation to be viable, the primitives above must be able to be used in a way that allows some type of "standardized trust" to be applied, some type of identity to be associated with it, and some way of paying for the resources used.

One possible solution for implementing a Federated Cloud of Clouds is to use cryptocurrencies to pay for the processing of data, identify who's data it might be, and then encapsulate the data being federated into some type of standard.
I have explored a generalized solution for this and have presented it to a few peers. It seems doable, if we can mobilize the development community's intent to change how software is written.

BTW, I don't consider "standards" to be anything other than a light consensus mechanism applied to a set of data which is then made immutable. One might consider a blockchain a "standard" by the evidence it is unchanging, once created.

Federation will only occur once we've moved infrastructure to using cryptocurrencies for deployments. It will also require a radical shift in the way we think about how software is written and paid for.