skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
That's pointless. Putting the malicious file in the archive would accomplish the same result.
At a software shop about ten years ago I loved code reviews. They were a major way of learning and teaching things. I stopped doing some silly (albiet harmless) habits when other people pointed them out.
That sounds good but in our case that's really not feasible. If a certain developer leaves almost anybody in the team can take over his work in a few weeks. But nobody has the team to stay up to date all the time. We would have to staff up quite a bit. This would be nice but it ain't gonna happen.
If only home ownership weren't correlated with generational wealth. Then we'd have a meritocracy, and you could dismiss people renting as bad decision makers. In the real world, people rent because they can't afford to buy a home.
So you take a little news from a network founded specifically to promote Republican ideals and viewpoints?
What? And keep the other developer waiting?
Most people don't understand how compound interest works or that APR isn't actually simple interest, but compound interest calculated monthly or in some other way along with secret fees.
Powershell is a terminal?
Rear Adm. Grace Hopper.

She wrote the first compiler which she was assured couldn't be done after already doing it, she rose to the top of a male dominated field and did it on merit, she took a leave from Vasser to join WAVES (womens volunteer corp during WWII) as a junior lieutenant, refused to retire and ended up a Read Admiral.

Ada gets a lot of respect as the 'first' female programmer but Hopper is at least as significant imo.

> The most important thing I've accomplished, other than building the compiler, is training young people. They come to me, you know, and say, 'Do you think we can do this?' I say, "Try it." And I back 'em up. They need that. I keep track of them as they get older and I stir 'em up at intervals so they don't forget to take chances
I think that the problem is that the sorites paradox continues to manifest even if it is applied only to a single person. Any reasonable person will agree that one grain of sand is not a heap, and that some sufficiently large pile of sand will a heap; but I think that few reasonable people would be able to pinpoint, either a priori or a posteriori, any particular number of grains as constituting the minimal possible heap.

If you apply this probabilistic interpretation to a single person, then your conclusion is that even individuals (rather than communities) attach words to concepts only probabilistically, which is not a paradox but is, I think, rather disturbing.
Also won't save you from the congressional hearing. Such hearings only happen because they don't like what they are seeing, it pretty much means hot water, and it doesn't mean there will be any meaningful consequence except broadcasting to the nation that Congress isn't amused.
I know bearer bonds can be stolen. What I meant is that the idea of "ownership" is more complicated than you're admitting.

We can choose to ignore what the crypto says about who owns an underlying asset. The asset can be seized, destroyed, etc. I mention bearer bonds in this context because if the value is native to the crypto- as is the case with digital currencies- settlement is more meaningful.
I'll be nice since you are. Java is well-defined language with safety features. Problem was it's written for inefficient abstract machine hard to implement correctly and with much complexity. That and its libraries are written in an unsafe language.

Whereas, languages like Modula-3, Ada, or safe variants of C are straight-forward to map to real hardware with small to no runtimes and libraries in same language. Many checks in by default. Two, C subsets and SPARK, can be proven free of common errors.

There's a vast difference in safety between such languages and the Java platform. Complexity of compiler/runtime and unsafe libraries are main reasons. Safety-critical, minimal runtimes exist for Java but they're slow and I doubt you paid $$$ for them. ;)
That point may not exist though, if it just gains more 'heapness' over time. Even if 99% of people agree that a collection of grains of sand is a 'heap' there might be some people who still insist that it is not.
I think he is giving advice specific to a project that is explicitly for the purpose of making money. I didn't get the sense that this advice applied to something that you were building just because you wanted to.
Google's famed parser does not even try to parse Finnish. "kutsuperusteisesti" = "as-per-subscription".

It tries to translate all compound words and their word-forms as unique entities, the number of which is infinite: http://www.ling.helsinki.fi/~fkarlsso/genkau2.html
- video-one.com

- pinkdino.com

- xvideos.com

- xhamster.com
Additional bonus: Korean uses lots of basic angles, squares, and lines and many Hangul have "three parts" eg. 한국어의 It's a beautifully simple writing system.

You can go quite a long comment chain in Japanese without seeing の. I always tell people "look for lots of simple characters that can be written with only 2 or 3 lines mixed in between a bunch of really complex characters".

来週は学校に行きません

For those who don't know Japanese, only following my rule, can you identify the Japanese characters in the sentence above?

Except with names, Japanese writing will have a bunch of Chinese characters with many "simple" Japanese characters sprinkled in between. To someone who doesn't read Japanese, both are "unintelligible" but I find people can identify the more complex Kanji from the more simple Kana quite easily and can point them out with pretty good accuracy, even if they can't read any of the kana.

The above example without Japanese characters if you'd like to see if you guessed correctly:

来週学校行
This is a lot of interesting information. I hope that one day we can avoid this level of complexity though. We have enough to worry about with modern computer systems.

I wrote a driver for FreeBSD recently and had to implement memory barriers to get it accepted into mainline. I had never dealt with memory barriers before and I couldn't help but think "great! what is this new thing I have to keep in mind?" It wasn't all that difficult, but still...

We have built up so many layers of complexity that it's becoming very difficult to secure things, for example. I really hope we can somehow drastically simplify computers/software in the future.
Linux Apps:  What we are trying to do
> I am not sure that this is correct.

<sigh> So you're smarter than every physicist alive.

Well... no.

> One can now argue whether that change should be called information ...

No, you can't. You're using colloquial English to reason about physics. This is wrong. Physicists have a very specific definition for "information" (as I already said, and you ignored). And in this case, no information is exchanged.

> That is pretty vague and might or might not be true.

As the published nuclear physicist in the argument... yes, yes, it's true.

> Do you mean every information exchanges between two spatially separated parties necessarily requires the exchange of (real) particles?

Yes.
One of the projects I'd love to develop is an automated peer editor for student essays. My wife is an english teacher and a large percentage of her time is taken up by grading papers. A large percentage of that time is then spent marking up grammar and spelling. What I envision is a website that handles that grammar/spelling bit. More importantly, I'd like it as a tool that the students use freely prior to submitting their essays to the teacher. I want them to have immediate feedback on how to improve the grammar in their essays, so they can iterate and learn. By the time the essays reach the teacher, the teacher should only have to grade for content, composition, style, plagiarism, citations, etc. Hopefully this also helps to reduce the amount of grammar that needs to be taught in-class, freeing time for more meaningful discussions.

The problem is that while I have knowledge and experience in the computer vision side of machine learning, I lack experience in NLP. And to the best of my knowledge NLP as a field has not come as far as vision, to the extent that such an automated editor would have too many mistakes. To be student facing it would need to be really accurate. On top of that it wouldn't be dealing with well formed input. The input by definition is adversarial. So unlike SyntaxNet which is built to deal with comprehensible sentences, this tool would need to deal with incomprehensible sentences. According to the link, SyntaxNet only gets 90% accuracy on random sentences from the web.

That said, I might give SyntaxNet a try. The idea would be to use SyntaxNet to extract meaning from a broken sentence, and then work backwards from the meaning to identify how the sentence can be modified to better match that meaning.

Thank you Google for contributing this tool to the community at large.
I really love the error/spellcheck analogy.
This is beyond annoying. It gives the impression they won't even tell me what the service does until I register.
Physicists have thought through that, too. You can create a theoretical model, and then do experiments to see if the model is right.

It isn't. All known underlying models of QM are either wrong, or (as yet) untested.
Why do I need to make a website? I've got a Twitter feed and a Facebook page.
Alchemy as a pseudo-chemistry is a conventional, but superficial interpretation of it. The pseudo-chemistry narrative fits well with our current, normative narratives and so we don't really question it. However the alchemists were philosophers. The Philosopher's Stone is the embodiment of the Philosophy, and as such, the Philosopher is the Philosopher's Stone in it's final stage. Or put it in different terms, the Truth extracted from philosophical investigation is then used to transmute the philosopher until there is no distinction between the philosopher and Truth. It's this last stage that, I think, many modern students of philosophy fail to take their philosophy to. You might be able to google it under "philosophical alchemy".

There are strains of alchemy that does concern itself with elixirs and transmutations of substances, but a discussion of that requires gnosis. (These strains, though, are interesting in that they are wildly proliferated in both Eastern and Western cultures).

Math is not as fundamental as people like to think it is :-D

As for non-dual Shiava Tantra, I can see why you would think it is a set of principles derived from religion. The View derives from empirical methods, reproducible, if not objective. (There is no such thing as a privileged objective view in a non-dual philosophy). Those truths form the a priori in which the rest of the View descends from. It happens to appear to be religious, but it is not religious that most people think it is. Christopher Wallis's book, Tantra Illuminated has several chapters on just the philosophical view, including how Indian philosophers have different ideas on what constitutes validity and proof. There is a section there where Wallis speaks about the non-dual Tantric View in terms of Western Philosophy.

I get that your view of philosophy has a heavy Western bias. It's for that reason that the authors of the original article is trying to champion greater diversity. Check out Wallis's book sometime, maybe just the chapters on the View.
That has to feel pretty good. This reminds me of the cpercival exchange way back when. It's funny to see people set themselves up like that in this community.

Hello! A good chunk of the users of this site build stuff for a living and for fun!
I was going to vote your comment up, but I refrained. I also didn't vote it down, and I want to mention why.

I don't see the need for you to put those digs in against Fox News.

I get people don't like Fox News. I'm not a fan. But everyone here (on the whole) seems to hold a similar opinion, so the digs aren't necessary.

They weren't even germain to your point. You were making a perfectly good argument that numerous sources from both sides of the spectrum were included. I felt your commentary and singling out of Fox News distracted me from that.
>They found that the shape of the survival curve remained essentially the same, but it was stretched or contracted as the temperature was changed. Creatures raised at lower temperature enjoyed a stretched survival curve, while worms exposed to higher temperature lived shorter lives.

So sci-fi stasis had it right all long.
That problem applies with any arbitrary category. If you look at any color, you're going to describe it as whatever color category its closest to. If it's more red than yellow, you might call it orange, I might call it red, someone else might call it orange-red, or I dunno 'pumpkin'. Language is imprecise.
The impulse to develop a system of logic that relies on degrees of truth is one that many people have had over the history of philosophy and I can tell you that it is highly problematic. I am struggling to find a succinct way to explain why this is but the following example might be work.

1. It is 50% true that Sally has red hair.

2. It is 50% true that Sally has brown hair.

3. It is 50% true that Sally has not red hair. (see 2.)

You end up running into contradictions all over the place and having a non-binary system of logic makes it nearly impossible to develop any formal system of reasoning.

I'm not completely clear on the second half of your comment but when you say "portion of people agree" I assume you are trying to use an empirical theory of truth. There are again many problems with this theory but I can think of an example that might illustrate. It's a toy example that I won't fully expand upon but it illustrates the point at hand.

There is a box in a room that is painted yellow. A group of people is asked to state the color of the box but they are all colorblind and state that it is grey. The consensus about the color of the box is clearly wrong in this case. Some people will object to this example because the meaning of words is also clearly derived from their use.

The epistemic theory of vagueness is not far off from what you are proposing and it is the theory that Williamson posits in his book. Essentially, there is a hard cutoff for all statements that are vague. It is either true that the collection of grains is a heap or it is not. An omniscient speaker could evaluate the truth of a statement about whether the collection of grains is a heap or not with definite certainty because only the omniscient speaker possesses all of the relevant information about the property of being a heap. In other words vagueness is a problem of inexact knowledge.

Another example of inexact knowledge is if you were to look out over a stadium and state "there are 23,422 people here." Barring the possibility that you are a savant and actually counted all of the people, if you made that statement and it was true that 23,422 people were in the stadium it isn't also true that you knew that there were that many people. You lack the relevant information about how many people are in the stadium to safely make the claim that there are n number of people in the stadium just as you lack the relevant information about the property of being a heap to safely make the claim that you know it is true that a collection of n grains is a heap.

This is a powerful theory which is not as easily defeated as others but keep in mind that it is not without weakness. Hopefully this at least exposes some of the concepts to you even if it's at a superficial level.
Nice video intro/discussion about the book for anyone interested. I haven't had a chance to read it yet but it is fascinating.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyry8mgXiTk
"Normal radiation emissions" from nuclear power plants do not include decomissioned structures.
> An outdated myth.

Don't you mean an outdated fact, since it was true.

> Certain workflow limitations exist.

Also true of SVN. I'd argue it is more true of SVN than Git, but whatever.

> Git history is not safe

You gave so much leniency to subversion for half-truths earlier, but you're going to come down on Git for this? `rebase` does not destroy history. `commit --amend` does not destroy history. `filter-branch` does not destroy history. The old commits are still there. You can easily find them with `reflog`. `reset --hard` doesn't even add new commits, just changes where a branch pointer points.

As identified by others in this thread, this is really cherry-picking the issues and totally ignoring some major flaws and drawbacks specific to SVN that led to DVCS's in the first place.

If it wasn't already obvious that this was a biased piece, you include only negeative experiences with git in your "further reading" section.
I try doing this a lot when listening to people on the street and think I'm pretty good at it... Of course, I never truly know unless I ask!
SyntaxNet is, by definition, for syntactic analysis - it would likely not help you much with semantics, to extract meaning. It could maybe help you automatically determine is a sentence is grammatically correct, though.
They travel 100s of miles to get help.When they make the trip what do they take?
One example of immortality in humans is the egg cells.
http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/egg-cetera-1-the-immortal...
Her description and visual aid for "nano second" are brilliant.

http://blog.jgc.org/2012/10/a-downloadable-nanosecond.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanosecond
> Yep.

Unlike some other languages, the vast majority of calls in Rust are static rather than dynamic (even moreso than C++), which averts the problem from the outset. And even then, LLVM is still capable of AOT devirtualization. It's very rare to reach for a trait object rather than a bounded generic, so I'm afraid that categorizing bounded generics as a "weak abstraction" is hyperbolic on your part. :)

> a JIT can do this

Constant folding is hardly the exclusive purview of JIT. :P When coming up with the above example I had to repeatedly jump through hoops in order to keep LLVM from statically evaluating the entire function; even when I managed to force LLVM to stop inlining the function, it went behind my back and propagated the constant into the uninlined function, creating a symbol that did nothing other than return the integer 5050. :P
Large swaths of the Bay Area can get gigabit internet.. especially at offices where the startups will be performing their work. I'm at a non-tech company with ~100 employees in the Presidio and a speedtest runs at 220mbps.

There's been a slow roll-out to consumers, but much of SF is now covered by Webpass, Sonic, Monkeybrains, etc. Even Comcast is offering multiple-hundred mbps cable internet now. The number of techies who are materially impacted by 200mbps vs. 1,000mbps is so small to be irrelevant when talking about regional startup trends.
I especially liked his sony rap: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iUvuaChDEg
Your version above has at least two bugs I see (will fall over with various forms of white space in the filenames). And it would be nice to have interactivity and verboseness (admittedly just flags to mv). It would also be better to work with plain portable shell, rather than requiring bash, so you'll need to include some basename calls. Also should it stop on the first rename failure, or just keep ploughing on no matter what?

Before you know it, you have a script you've debugged and tested.
Looked like a nice meetup & thanks for sharing the video link. It was a bit hard to view the slides from within the video, do you have a copy of your presentation you can share as well? Thanks!
Politifact is not a neutral source. They might as well be ran by the DNC
> But even disregarding this, there seems to be a need to propagate something through space.

That's the problem with QM. So far as we can tell, nothing propagates through space. Even if something did propagate through space, it does so faster than the speed of light. And we know that information travelling faster than the speed of light is impossible. Because if it was possible, we would have causality violations.

i.e. if faster than light travel was possible, the universe would necessarily look very different than it does.

So we have multiple experiments, all of which are true, and which apparently disagree with each other in certain esoteric ways. Since the universe is consistent, we must conclude that the failure is in our understanding, not in the universe.
Chemist James Lovelock, one of the authors of the Gaia hypothesis, suggested dispersing nuclear waste throughout nature preserves. Animals can adapt to the radiation pretty quickly at low levels and it would discourage humans from developing the preserves.
No way Elon investing a dime on this corrupted city. Valencia is ruled by rogue politicians.
Eric S. Raymond

terminals, version control, NTP... all ugly old things that MUST WORK
I think this is still risky if used in a context where the student might think that the computer is somehow always right. Great English writers often deliberately use sentence fragments or puns, or use a word with a nonstandard part-of-speech interpretation (especially using a noun as a verb). They may also sometimes use a sentence that's difficult for readers to parse and then explain the ambiguity after the fact.

If a teacher gave students a grammar-checking tool to check their writing, they might assume that the tool knew better than they did, which is only sometimes true.
One could argue that the New York Times or the DrudgeReport also have power to control and persuade. It's an issue of free speech and if it applies here.
It's fixed in 2.5.1.1:
http://git.qemu.org/?p=qemu.git;a=log;h=refs/tags/v2.5.1.1
last time I deployed a compiler to a machine in a reliable way it took 45 minutes and a lot of document reading.

Rust is not ready for linux yet.

(no, `curl -sSf https://static.rust-lang.org/rustup.sh | sh` does not count)
The Triton Indiegogo Campaign Scandal
Thanks for digging. I'll be damned! Somebody did pull it off. On my old, favorite platform as well!? So, one time on record.

Still supports my claim that reproducible builds and Thompson are mainstream buzzwords where our real concern per Orange Book days should be: coding defects in compiler source; effects of optimizations; malicious developers; trusted distribution of source; bootstrapping first, verified, local compiler. That's basically a human and machine verified compiler with simple code and signed zip's. Knocks out Thompson attack as side effect and negates reptoducible build need except for debugging.
There is no media outlet that is "required" to be truthful.
"our", "re", and "ise" (unless it's English from Oxford)
I used their Pixel + Create an Audience tool to target a Page Like campaign at people who have visited my businesses' website previously. Very low spam / fake account % on that campaign.
I've successfully obtained several positions at notable companies as a software engineer and I don't have a degree. Hasn't set me back a bit. Self taught is the way to go if you ask me.
This can happen if code reviews are not done well, I agree.

Things can be just as bad if code is not written well.

Doing either well requires good engineering practices and skill. It is part of the profession that you acquire over time, like anything else that can improve development.

Now, sometimes you are at the mercy of a system not filled with really experienced engineers. In such a system, though, I think skipping code reviews for expediency will probably be even worse in the long run.
Yes, I've used that before. I'm currently using Textacy for python which is also really good. However, extracting the named entities from a sentence is still a ways off from determining what's the subject of the sentence, although it gives a good indication. Using NER + quality POS tagging and tree building should do the trick for me I think.
Google understood this long ago. You need human editors/curators who can manually flag spam. Otherwise your index will be filled with spammers who gamed the algorithm correctly. Those that argue differently never was responsible for such a large-scale search/media operation.