skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
truth be told, Masaharu Goto wrote the CINT C++ interpreter at HP Japan and cern/root just embraced it and rolled it into its own floss distribution (F.R. was also an HP-CERN liaison for a very long time).

http://www.hanno.jp/gotom/Cint.html

(Saber-C, the Saber company has become Centerline, and the software itself has been renamed to CodeCenter.
saber, xsaber, and sabertool have become codecenter, xcodecenter, and codetool. DEC offered Saber-C on ULTRIX. It never appeared to do very well in the marketplace, which is some kind of tragedy. It was, and is, a terrific piece of software. The fact that a product as useful as Saber-C could fail to do well in the market is an indicator of the impoverishment of software "engineering" practices industry-wide. Anyway, it ended up being ObjectCenter from Integrated Computer Solutions doing C++ and having an IDE with class browsing, with xobjectcenter)
There are many problems with that link. First of all - there is no "branchless bresenham" in it. Second - the author, while noticing that float to int conversion in his compiler is slow, decided not to do anything about it instead of doing a simple google search to find how to do it fast enough. Third - he is using 8087 FP instructions, which had been deprecated since late 90s. Fourth - he is essentially measuring function call (look what's happening in his inner loop). And fifth - he is not measuring other Bresenham's algorithms. I'd love to see how he does ellipses with fixed point.
Good example, I think it is easier to dislodge old tractors with tools built for one specific thing, i.e. that do less, but do it so much simpler that they're just a joy to use (at least in comparison).
Pre-register for Google's new Allo and Duo messenger apps
>Where did I mention closing military or intelligence?

Where did I mention closing them? I am just making the connection those are two aspects of governing that require some level of secrecy. If countries "minding their own business" need secrecy there, then it isn't a path to the US abandoning secrecy.

>The question at hand is whether the govt should be more transparent.

If that is your argument, I agree with it. But that wasn't the original argument. The original argument was complete transparency and "the government keeping secrets first place is inherently amoral."
Please don't do this.

We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11749136 and marked it off-topic.
.bg-video {
position: fixed;
top: 50%;
left: 50%;
transform: translate(-50%,-50%);
min-width: 100%;
min-height: 100%;
width: auto;
height: auto;
z-index: -1

/* don't set a background color or image on body */
}

I mean, why do you need JavaScript?
So let me see if I have this right. He repeatedly followed protocol, was shut down for doing so, and told to be a "good team player", and things continued as they were. Illegal activity on the part of the NSA and the suppression of this by the NSA and the government, AND the congressional staff this was communicated to. All kept quiet. All suppressed. And ILLEGAL. And so, when the system doesn't work and it is leaked to the press, at that point the ONLY way to get this information out to fellow US citizens, your position is that the key thing is that he didn't continue to play along with keeping all this secret? The whistleblower protocol failed and was co-opted by the very agency that was supposed to protect it. And it failed not once, but multiple times against multiple people who worked for the NSA and found these things out. The only other recourse was to talk to the press. You know, the one protected by the first amendment? Exposing how the government was violating the fourth amendment and lying about it and saying as well that any evidence of it was a national security secret?

And for you the key part is that, when the protocols fail and are subverted by the IG agency, Drake is in the wrong? Wow.
SRI LANKA FLOODING: DEATH TOLL RISES TO 92 AND 109 MISSING, 185,000 DISPLACED
If you live in CA, NJ, Peurto Rico, ND, SD, MT, the Virgin Islands or New Mexico, and are eligible to vote in the Democratic primary you can still vote against her and vote for Bernie Sanders, a man who once called for the abolition of the CIA just prior to the Church committee.

Contrary to media meme, it is not mathematically impossible for Bernie Sanders to win the majority of pledged delegates, he would just need around 68% of the remaining vote.

It would take a decisive swing in the polls for sure, but not impossible. There are two weeks left and with Trump beating Hillary in many national polls, perhaps enough Democratic voters will see that a vote for Hillary is almost the same as a vote for Trump.

The FBI investigation is yet to have concluded as well.

And if that decisive swing doesn't come, I hope that the superdelegates, who will be the deciding vote in any event, will do what they were put in place to do in the 80's, and that is prevent the nomination of a candidate that would lose in the Fall election.

Are they undemocratic and a disgrace to the party? Yes. But the rules are the rules, and the process is the process. They were made unbound delegates by the party for this exact reason.

Make no mistake, if Bernie Sanders was ahead in pledged delegates, but behind in head to head polling with Trump, the superdelegates would not hesitate to deny the will of the majority of voters, that is why they were there in the first place.

They are also there to create a psychological advantage to the establishment candidate, who gets to include over 500 delegates in their count based on a poll of super delegates, who don't even vote until the convention.

The unwritten rules are different for the connected elite than they are for outsiders and whistle blowers.

My analysis is that at this point Trump is the heavy favorite to win the Fall election. Trump's negatives are already known and baked in, and enough people just don't care, while Hillary's negatives have not yet hit a floor. Trump has not even begun his attempt to define her.

Trump is about to bring up in an unavoidable way her ME intervention as Secretary of State, questionable Clinton Global Initiative deals, Whitewater, Filegate, Travelgate, her paid Goldman Sachs talks, as well as comments made against women who accused Bill of misconduct.

Trump will continue to be an asymmetric opponent, with tighter OODA loops than Hillary.

She will try to define him, and he will morph. She will make an attack, and he will dominate the next news cycle with an expertly planted submarine.

She won't be able to pin him down, and she will be constantly on the defensive.

Hillary's best and only hope is demographics and identity politics, but my bet is that Trump shaves off enough economically aspirational voters that identify or want his success to win.
Interesting, I think I came across Nodal while evaluating options for a side project a while back. Having just taken another look the big thing that seemed to be missing was something to serialize objects to JSON, although that may be because serializing objects is so trivial on JavaScript anyway. There also didn't seem to be much documentation about the operational side of things, most glaring was nothing being said about how the scheduler actually schedules jobs and ensures they get run.
Although I appreciate the effort, At the end of the day it's easier comprehend the JavaScript version than the hacky CSS / HTML.
Why not an all inclusive hotel/resort? Same benefits + reasonable Internet.
All of the actual infrastructure for evolve is actually in hg core. This is the obsolescence markers and the logic for hiding obsolete commits. This infrastructure makes it so that all hg commands see a filtered set of commits if any are obsolete and "unreferenced" (hg doesn't really find commits by referencing, but the logic for when an obsolete commit is hidden is similar to git's referencing logic).

The "only" thing the Evolve extension does is expose a UI for creating and manipulating obsolete commits, but it's not the only extension that does it.

So, I guess you could build Evolve for git, if you absolutely cannot be persuaded to use anything but git. You would need to build obsolescence markers, and the proper logic for exchanging them between clones. Getting this right has taken a lot of work for hg, but maybe now that the ideas are mostly there, it would be easy to replicate them.
askyourmother, while you're busy putting down other communities and folks' hardwork, we'll continue building the future. Comments like these aren't welcome and add zero value to the conversation.
This is my takeaway from Rails. Good default for your 1.0. Frankly, I would probably use Rails even if I was starting a startup. It's easy to hire, easy to talk about. Heck you will often find graphic designers who have played with Rails.

Choosing Rails will definitely lead to problems in the long run, but at least they are well understood problems. You're going to do an in-flight replacement of your 1.0 eventually anyway. You just need one grayhair on the team to steer the younglings away from the worst abuses and you'll have a stable, if clunky, platform to build on. It's the definition of mitigating risk.

Java and C# are of course equally boring, but I think the fact that Rails is culturally open source provides a huge benefit over them.

JavaScript, Go, Haskell, etc are arguably better if you really understand them, but they're research projects. Lots of great pieces of code, but the story of how to use them together is still being written. I would use one of them if my intention was to hire slow and keep my dev team fewer than ~30 people in the long term.
> Try to sell them a new page with attached the price of a major refactoring... good luck with that

Could it work to include a "technical debt" figure in your quotes (where each feature without refactoring increase the debt and the "interests" on each future invoices)? Might be useful to explain them that quick-and-dirty is not always the best solution.
One of the concerns my local precinct was that body cameras would hamper the right to privacy of the general public.

Always On would mean a task force of moving cameras watching everyone(?)
There was a recent article about Julia that discussed how a printf in C translate to very few instructions in assembler.

Also I would like to point that "translates" is a little misleading word. There are two ways of implementing an abstraction from a higher level system to a lower level one.

You can generate code or you can write a runtime framework that does the work dynamically. Although from the higher place both may seem the same, there's a huge difference between them that has consequences.
Well, IoT is all the rage these days...
What I learned from being the only woman at a startup
(Disclaimer: this is just hearsay) I think that most cruise ships have their own cell towers, with their own roaming agreements. So if you try to connect while you're on-board, you'll be on their network and paying their rates.
At some point you'll be in a position to decide which tech stack a company should use. I suspect you'll find there's a bit of a chicken and egg problem here - you'll want access to the largest pool of good candidates possible so you will also be disincentived from straying from the well worn path.

Even if you grant that good programmers can pick up new languages or frameworks easily (which I'm not entirely convinced of - there is a wide gulf between "can follow the tutorial" and "successfully used in anger"), you'll incur a penalty in velocity while all your new hires learn Framework X.

Anecdotal example of the perils of going off the beaten path: I often see a job advert on StackO for a company looking for Python/Django guys. When you click through to the job description, they are actually using Perl/Dancer. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but for me personally that's a deal breaker. I have no interest in investing the time to become proficient on that particular stack.
> That is not how Lisp works. You are just wrong.

Please tell me how it works, then. I guess you could easily find a counter-example.

First things first.
Optional arguments are handled by &OPTIONAL and &KEY parameters, which can be used to provide defaults values as well as a flag indicating whether the argument is provided. The most used default value is probably NIL.
NIL belongs to the SYMBOL, NULL, LIST and BOOLEAN types and their supertypes (ATOM, SEQUENCE, T). If you really want, you can include it in a custom type too.
For most uses, the type (OR NULL U) is regarded generally as an optional U. This is consistent with the definition
of generalized boolean and lists (a list is an optional cons-cell). If some corner cases, you have to use another sentinel value or use the third binding in &OPTIONAL and &KEY argument bindings. This is hardly a problem if you have a type U such as (TYPEP NIL U), but for most useful cases, (TYPEP NIL U) in fact returns NIL.

Here below I define a function FOO which accepts a string and prints it:

(defun foo (x) (print x))

The type declaration for FOO is:

(declaim (ftype (function (string) t) foo))

In Java, such a function will works with null too, because
null is an acceptable value for String. In Common Lisp, you have to write this declaration to allow NIL:

(declaim (ftype (function (or null string) t) bar))

And just to test how it behaves,
let's use IGNORE-ERRORS to catch errors and return them as secondary values.
Calling the first FOO with NIL signals an error:

(ignore-errors (foo nil))
NIL
#<TYPE-ERROR expected-type: STRING datum: NIL>
;; Does not print anything else

The same test case with the second FOO shows that it accepts NIL:

(ignore-errors (foo nil))
NIL
;; prints "NIL"

Lisp being Lisp, those checks are likely to be done dynamically, but in some cases, your compiler can determine if a variable will hold NIL and warn you about a conflicting usage.
However, how type checks are enforced does not change the argument, namely that NIL is not an appropriate value for all types.
Can you explain how it isn't quite right? I would like to correct the article if this is the case.

When I ran the code, the Go HTTP/2 package caused a panic with the message "http2: TLSConfig.CipherSuites is missing HTTP/2-required TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256".

I went source diving and found the following:

https://golang.org/src/net/http/h2_bundle.go?h=TLS_ECDHE_RSA...

It even has the helpful comment:

> If they already provided a CipherSuite list, return an error if it has a bad order or is missing ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256.

I cannot see how I would have achieved my aim without disabling HTTP/2.

The aim of the exercise was to get a perfect score using Go. I wasn't discussing HTTP/2 in general. I was referencing the Go standard library implementation.

As I say, if you still think it's not right, please let me know.
The DAO Bytecode Tour for the Skeptic (Part 2)
Downloaded the app and tried it. Links don't work, pictures don't show, there's no conversation view... This isn't becoming someone on Twitter, it's viewing a non-interactive and incomplete screenshot from over their shoulder. That makes it much, much less useful for its stated purpose. Too bad.
We are also into M-PESA.

(And as before I am interested if anyone has other good (micro-/mobile )payments providers they would recommend in an around Kenya, India/Pakistan and rural southeast Asia. Same goes for cheap reliable non-GSM comm stacks.)
Just rewrite everything in Go.
Wow. That's something I did not see coming.

And I'm pretty sure I'm far from the only one interested in seeing what software this one will come packing.
A few WiFi beacons and some inertial guidance, done.
The date of the spec can be thought of as a version number.
Show HN: Web framework for building UIs, written in Dart
It's all about you.
I can't speak for other cities because I haven't watched their job markets enough, but anecdotally in Chicago I've seen it break down mostly like this:

Big companies use enterprise Java unless they're stuck with a legacy VB/ASP/Coldfusion stack, with C# less commonly.

Fintech companies use a mix of C# and C++.

Small companies started before ~2010 use PHP, with Rails less commonly.

Small companies started after ~2010 use Rails, with hipster Java (Scala/Groovy/et al) less commonly.

I can only remember offhand seeing one job ad for a company using Sinatra instead of Rails for their Ruby stack.
The biggest problem with that is CADT among the toolkit lib devs, that in combination with rigid dependencies in distro package managers leads sprawling permutations.
Having used many different ORMs that let you think that your business models could just gain persistence with a little sprinking of automagic, I far prefer the non-object-orientation of ActiveRecord.

Databases aren't object-oriented. Thinking of them with an is-a, LSP etc. mindset is a recipe for pain down the road. Databases are containers for facts: a means of storing, finding, synthesizing and manipulating facts. Your User class isn't a user of your application; IMO it's wrong to think of it as an object, because it could just be a slice of the User's facts (e.g. a subset of the columns).

I'm not a big fan of object orientation any more, and I like my databases to be stores of facts. The data in the database is primary; code in the application is secondary. Persistence isn't something I add to my benighted objects to let them be reanimated by query; persistence is what lets me briefly get a handy representation of a tuple locally.

To my mind, ActiveRecord models are little more than hashes with a nicer syntax. I don't need them to be much more; I don't want them to be much more. You can try and add methods and make them smaller, but coordinating the manipulation of facts is problematic in a transactional world, and the responsibilities aren't clear either. Object orientation is predicated on the idea of message sends and hidden state; tables have explicit state and no behaviour. Not a good match.
LET'S DO LIFE
Wasn't ZFS even "production ready" before BTRFS development even began?

I don't remember the state of it when it was first introduced into Solaris, maybe someones memory is better then mine. Was ZFS better of in 06-07 Then BTRFS is now?
So no mention of Imperialism and the vast transfer of wealth from indigenous peoples to their colonial oppressors? Not even a nod? We're rich because we're so free and liberated and gosh if these third world knuckleheads would just get it together they'd be just as rich! A+ WSJ.
>There was a recent article about Julia that discussed how a printf in C translate to very few instructions in assembler.

I wouldn't doubt it; compilers have become amazing at optimizing. But printf is hundreds of lines of C, at very least: http://opensource.apple.com//source/Libc/Libc-1082.20.4/stdi...
> So, it sounds like if you can't provably account for all possible inputs, the compiler will recognise this and throw an error. How? Magic! (And a solver, feeding your type constraints into the totality checker, I guess...)

That would make many practical, real-world programs noncompilable. Any program which accepts data via API calls, or even reads strings from STDIN, cannot know what values are going to be passed to it before it runs. Compilers cannot predict the future.
I haven't made up my mind, actually. I just asked you questions, didn't I?

I think your argument is sound. Axiom: there's actually not that much racism. Theorem: the remaining racism is confined to a small number of people.

I just disagree with your axiom.
I think tptacek is generally somewhat to the right of most of HN, but "far-right" is a considerable exaggeration. (Insert standard disclaimer about the limitations of the "left"/"right" categories.)
Stopped reading at "unless the accusation is that the DOJ is lying in the indictment".

Do you seriously not understand how indictments work? Why would you use them as your source for an account of the events? The whole point of an indictment, which consists entirely of unproven allegations by design, is to throw everything possible at the target and paint the worst possible picture to make your case. It's not a finding of facts and it's not an impartial document.

Lying in an indictment would not be news in any way whatsoever. Not lying in an indictment would be news. But it's not really considered lying.
AR App domain
> Your objection is like looking at a pen-and-paper proof that a program terminates and saying it is invalid because of the halting problem.

That is a true statement for any program that accepts input, strictly speaking. The halting problem is unsolvable.
I'm not. He released a lot of information that has nothing to do with domestic survaillence. He should be prosecuted for leaking details on legitimate foreign survaillence. That's the NSA's job and I'm sure he made that job more difficult.
Much more likely the telco would just have the business name for billing info for a POTS line and would happily shut it off.
Back up what you're saying. Rails built a lot of extremely successful companies. It is not hard to scale or maintain if you are competent. If you scale beyond the capacity of Rails, you are Twitter and it's ok to move on.

I think your statement is patently false.
I'm a tournament Scrabble player and while I'm glad this article has brought some awareness to our game, this is pretty standard tournament strategy. It's about balancing your rack and playing short words when needed. If you have a long word that uses all your letters, it is 99% of the time the right play.

The only reason why he passed up the bingo PEREIRAS in that endgame is because it would have emptied the bag and if his opponent had a bingo to end the game, Jighere would have lost.
That's the WSJ.

Of course, what really did it was steam, iron, and steel. Until the 1800s, economic growth in Europe was about half a percent a century. Didn't matter whether you had a king or a Parliament. A few coastal cities had figured out how to do shipping efficiently and were doing OK, but that had been happening on and off since Roman times. Those were sometimes city-states run by merchants, and were the closest thing to capitalist empires before the Industrial Revolution. That didn't scale; there wasn't much to ship yet.

Then came steam engines. It took a century to get that right. The first Newcomen steam engine, in 1712, was a dud, mostly because there was nothing to make a good boiler and cylinder with yet, so an extremely inefficient low pressure system had to be used. It took a century to get to Watt's engine. That was good enough for locomotives, and finally things started to spin.

The big moment was the opening of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, in 1830. This was the moment when railroads got out of beta. People could, for the first time, buy a ticket and go someplace. Within a few decades, railroads were everywhere in Europe and growing in the US and India.

The Next Big Thing was steel. Steel has a long history, but until 1880, it was an expensive niche product, like titanium today. Then came the Bessemer process. Suddenly there was something strong and cheap from which you could make stuff.

None of this came out of the merchant city-states. The Hanseantic League didn't develop railroads. The Mediterranean maritime states didn't develop heavy industry. The most capitalist organizations on Earth at the time did a lot for art and architecture, but didn't start the Industrial Revolution early.

For a different view, learn how the East got rich. Read "How Asia Works".[1] This is a good study of how some of the east Asian countries went from the 18th century to the 21st in a few decades. The early stages required some degree of central planning, and specific incentives.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/How-Asia-Works-Success-Failure-ebook/...