skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Just going to need to train the old timers on the new key strokes.

Ironically, that's probably the reverse of reality. Looking at the comments here, for starters, we have people espousing views that things have "always" been this way, and quoting their experiences of "the past ten years". It's the young people who are having problems and need to be re-trained here.

The "old timers" will, conversely, have experienced data entry on terminals or in MS-DOS programs like (say) Borland Paradox, where of course things like a backspace key will at most have moved from field to field on a single page, if indeed it caused inter-field motion at all. (The CUA Guidelines give no indication that autotab applies to backspacing from the first field position, i.e. auto back tab. There's a COMPSEC83 paper that talks about it, though.) Backspace certainly didn't switch forms.
It sounded to me like a euphemism for hanging out on the roof waiting for your non compete agreement term to run out.
I'd wholeheartedly support wealth taxes if I trusted the social safety net and health care system in my country. Until then, I'll hoard money out of fear: I don't have anything I'm intending to spend it on and hopefully never will. Fix health care and there'd be a high probability of the chains coming off off, at least for me.
You didn't read it? Or you overlooked the part where he said WHO should "retire" it - and who should keep it!

This is about how people interpret statistical results. Which is not a mathematical process - it is what comes after the math.
And Stallman was right 12 years ago.
How soon before word gets around and tons of people start climbing the cliffs to see the trees? Hopefully we find a way to protect them before then.
Or just design the FDE to store more than one copy of the encryption key.

Drives that claim to do encryption themselves have their own issues (like not actually using the user provided key for encryption and other crypto failures from developers & companies not familiar with how crypto is supposed to work).
Honest question. What is this you are referring to? I've never heard of a "Full Disk Encryption Drive" and google isn't forthcoming.
I'm not very familiar with FileVault, but does it not provide a recovery key when you set it up? (for writing down and stashing in a safe place or backing up to the cloud)

Every other FDE scheme I've ever seen does, accompanied by big scary "WRITE THIS DOWN. IF YOU LOSE IT, AND THEN YOUR DISK GETS CORRUPTED, YOUR DATA IS GONE FOREVER" warnings, and with good reason: yeah, if the master key sector is corrupted and you don't have a backup, you're screwed.
Net Protector Antivirus 2016 Crack and Keygen Free Download
I'm not following how "uncertainty" principle is a bad way of putting it. No matter what we do, we cannot know the position and velocity precisely at the same time. If you know position precisely, velocity is uncertain. From what I understand it's not a matter of velocity is "as yet undetermined", if we know the location precisely, then the velocity has many values and will collapse to one value if observed precisely (at which point position will have gone from precise to many valued).

Or should I not be physics-ing in the morning.
I'm not sure what this comment is trying to insinuate? I mean sure they might have a financial interest, but they're also writing about stuff they know well since they use it.
So, it's like Python. You can still mix and match; you just have to explicitly convert between them at the appropriate points.

The main breaking change is that you can't read a stream of bytes from a byte-oriented resource (say, a network connection that by definition can only send a stream of octets) and magically treat it like text elsewhere. While that's a tempting thing to want to do, it's been an unending fountain of bugs over the years. For example, in Python 2.7:

>>> a = 'this is a test ಠ_ಠ'
>>> b = bytes(a)
>>> b
'this is a test \xe0\xb2\xa0_\xe0\xb2\xa0'
>>> type(b)
<type 'str'>

In Python 3.5:

>>> a = 'this is a test ಠ_ಠ'
>>> print(a)
this is a test ಠ_ಠ
>>> b = bytes(a)
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
TypeError: string argument without an encoding
>>> b = bytes(a.encode('utf-8'))
>>> b
b'this is a test \xe0\xb2\xa0_\xe0\xb2\xa0'
>>> type(b)
<class 'bytes'>

In 2.7, you encode a series of Unicode values back to... a string? This is the source of all kinds of fun as functions expecting a string as input don't have a way to tell whether it's already been encoded or if they need to do so. In 3.5, there's no ambiguity. Functions that write to files or network sockets can either receive strings and know that they have to encode the strings locally, or bytes and know that they don't have to.

Right up near the top of Zen we get:

>>> import this
The Zen of Python, by Tim Peters

Beautiful is better than ugly.
Explicit is better than implicit.

The Python 2-style implicit conversions were awfully convenient 15 years ago when most things were ASCII. They're absolutely painful now that we've moved past the expectation that strings are arrays of single bytes.
This is the problem with Python 3. The arrogance of the people in support of wrestling it from us.

> Frankly, if these "carrots" haven't convinced you yet, then I'll wager you're not really the sort of person who is persuaded by carrots.

As someone that uses Python as a C replacement for one-off-scripts that work with binary objects and pure ASCII, Unicode is not a carrot. Unicode will never be a carrot. If anything, Unicode keeps me away.

If I was developing web apps, GUI programs, or data processing libraries, sure. These would all be carrots. But I'm not. The simplicity of Python 2 is my carrot.

> Python 3 does have carrots, and I want them.

You have them. But you seem to be more interested in taking away my carrots, so you don't have to worry about them any more. That's arrogance.
Not "googlers", this particular "googler" (me.) Google is a huge company, and I imagine a lot of people actually hold views closer to yours.

I'm just an old codger that can't understand why people have expectations of A, B and C, when they are buying a product that says it does A, promises to do B as well as possible and tells you that it definitely can't do C because it's technically impossible. Like, back in my day people read EULAs and stuff :)
I used to do that, for similar reasons, but stopped and stuck with the random account I happened to be using at the time.

The reason? Nothing more than HN has the least solvable captchas going and I was tired of a dozen attempts every time I create a new one.

I still think of it as a throwaway though, so don't care about the karma or pay heed to it. Ironically the comments I expect to go heavily negative often attract the highest positive response.
RE: >> catastrophically false

I think if you are a small, close knit team, then having great people and no process works great. If you are trying to scale developer productivity as your team grows in size, then you need more structure, so yeah - I agree 100% with your point.
As of last January, WhatsApp handled ~30b messages a day [0]. As of this January, WhatsApp has 1b users [1]. iMessage has ~300m and "several billion" messages per day (hard to get stats unfortunately).

Telegram has 100m users and handles ~15b messages per day [2] but, similar to Google, is not e2e encrypted.

As of last month [3], Facebook Messenger and WhatsApp combined had 60b messages per day. Assuming WhatsApp daily messages grew roughly linearly with users, their increase from 700m to 1b users would put them at ~42b out of that 60, leaving 18b for Facebook.

So there are at least ~40b e2e encrypted messages flying around thanks to WhatsApp, with likely at least 20b (assuming iMessage is bigger than Telegram, which seems reasonable) more from iMessage, putting the e2e encrypted count around the ~60b ballpark.

Telegram and Facebook together would be ~30b and I seriously doubt Skype IM is competitive but KakaoTalk is ~150m users, around the same size as Telegram and WeChat is around 600m users [5].

So the unencrypted messages definitely have far more volume and users than encrypted but the encrypted platforms are still the largest around. The article said "all of its biggest competitors" and given that Google doesn't operate in China (ruling out WeChat), I think that's a reasonable choice of words, although it's really hard to say thanks to iMessage's lack of transparency.

[0]: http://venturebeat.com/2015/01/06/whatsapp-now-has-700m-user...

[1]: http://www.statista.com/statistics/260819/number-of-monthly-...

[2]: https://telegram.org/blog/100-million

[3]: http://www.theverge.com/2016/4/12/11415198/facebook-messenge...

[4]: http://www.statista.com/statistics/248863/number-of-register...

[5]: http://www.statista.com/statistics/255778/number-of-active-w...
> Every time I look into packaging it seems like it has become even more of an arcane art

Plenty of people willing to help out!

The Fedora wiki actually contains a lot of general information on just creating RPM's, if you aren't planning on submitting and maintaining your software for inclusion in the Fedora Software Collection you don't need to be overly-zealous about following the Fedora Packaging Guidelines (though we hope you do, because it makes your software easier to use and less likely to break). "How to create an RPM package" is a good start [0]. The rpmdev-newspec tool part of the rpmdevtools package will generate you a decent skeleton you can use to get started with, though they still have some warts as they haven't been updated (they still call rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT which hasn't been necessary since EL6).

For the most part, an SRPM built for Fedora or EL* should also be able to be compiled for OpenSUSE - with some exceptions where package naming differs or incompatible software versions are present (you'll have to solve these issues with conditionals). The same will typically be the case with .deb's built for Debian and derivatives.

The Open Build Service from the OpenSUSE project [1] is an excellent tool for building and publishing packages for many different distributions, it won't save you from writing your spec files and debian/ files, but it will save you some time in building new releases afterwards (and it encourages the one rpmspec-with-conditionals workflow, so you don't maintain separate spec files for different distributions).

Of course, I'd always like to see developers trying to get their software in the distribution repositories, but you probably don't want to go through the hassle of joining Fedora/Debian/Ubuntu/etc just for that. However, if you already have a working rpmspec file and an sane build system that doesn't require crazy tweaks you can probably find a packager willing to work with you.

I haven't messed with debian packaging in a while, but if you have any questions about creating RPM's feel free to email me (snuxoll@fedoraproject.org).

[0]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package

[1]: https://build.opensuse.org/
On Linux you get ELOOP. How does that resolution even work on FreeBSD? Why does it resolve to $SHELL (the file resolves to itself).
Garcinia Cambogia a natural weight loss aid
There is no HN comment better than one that opens with Navier-Stokes and ends with O.D.B.
Deep cuts, huh? In case anyone isn't aware, this is Slate Star Codex's old blog. Scott is currently writing a novel that's also very good: http://unsongbook.com/
To be fair, "trapdoor encryption" == "hash".
The first CDN to support it will get the clients.
The theory of relativity is an misleadingly phrased concept - it should be the "theory of absolutivity" - because the relativeness is not the new part (galilean and newtonian relative reference frames had been around for centuries) it's reconciling it with the absolute speed of light which was the new part, the part that introduces tricky math and "strange" concepts that don't jive with our day-to-day sensory experiences in physics.
Sarcasm doesn't work that well on the internet. I suggest you speak more plainly in text.
Sure, but apparently they don't rush to do it.
The ability to choose between options without the choice being determined by prior conditions or influences.
The server is async, so there is no blocking functions exposed.

It passes all Autobahn tests, meaning it properly handles close frames & pings etc.

Timers are used to force close connections. The C++ HTTP server does not currently time out, but the Node.js HTTP server does, so this is one issue that needs to be fixed, yes.
More problematic may have been using sugar of lead to sweeten wine. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/sugar-of-lead-a-d...
Google Designing AI Processors
In this case, the Whataboutism has a mild kimchi flavor.
I thought exactly the same thing. ΔpΔv > k is exactly "the uncertainty in p and the uncertainty in v cannot be zero.
As well as a raging racist. Not just a firehose and attack dog racist, but full on these people in these neighbourhoods do not exist in my mind, racist.
2,-2,2,-2,2,-2,2,-2,2,-2,2,-2,2,-2,2,-2,2,-2,-1000

MAD: 54.5
STDV: 229.4

edit: OK I get that you wanted an example of what "too much" weight is. If you're looking for "how much the next datapoint will deviate from the mean, on average", then the MAD will tell you that, not the STDV. Except in some specific fields (maths, physics), people are much more interested in the MAD than the STDV, but all they get to make decisions is the STDV.
As Archer would say "Rich people problems". They really do bicker and fight over the pennies. When you already have more money than you need, competition becomes more important than the actual numbers.

It's like seeing someone drive to Whole Foods in a 200,000$ SUV only to get into an argument with the cashier over whether the artisanal honey was market at 5 or 10% off. He or she doesn't car about the money. It's about winning.
It's funny that you don't mention the warnings that can be security vulnerabilities, like integer precision/signedness.

The code screams security vulnerability and I'm not only talking about the warnings.
Maybe he did something really bad.
I wonder what impact this knowledge would have on the public's perception of Silicon Valley (and the tech industry in general) if it got very popular. The current thinking seems to be something akin to: Oil & Gas Industries bad, Tobacco Industry bad, Fast Food Industry Bad, Big Pharma bad. Startups Good! Silicon Valley Good. Tech will fix everything. But it's the same old game.
I applaud your willingness to let people try new things, but the way you describe it seems to assume that all new ideas are bound to fail. They aren't. Different is not necessarily better, but better is necessarily different.
If the encrypted plist containing the volume master key is lost or corrupted the recovery key is as useless as your password.

More details here: https://eprint.iacr.org/2012/374.pdf
I think it depends on the situation. Perhaps in a true fast-food restaurant, like McDonald's, it might not be quicker. On Wednesday, I stopped at a Sheetz -- a chain of gas stations/convenience stores in the U.S. -- where I ordered a sandwich. It was all done on a touch screen. I picked the sandwich, bread, toppings, condiments via pictures. I was able to add fries or onion rings to the order. It was the first time I had ever done this and it was a clear picture-based interface. When it was placed, out popped a receipt. while my sandwich was being made, I took the receipt to the counter with the cash registers -- for the whole place, not just food orders -- the scanned the bar code on the receipt and I paid. The person taking the money did not have to take my order and was able to handle other customers not ordering food.
And this precisely defines the reason for the existence of institutions, which can continue the execution of a set of values longer than a single lifespan of a human. A well designed institution can continue to amass wealth and power throughout its multi-generational existence.
I've written about this before with respect to mental illness -- I call it the "illusion of autonomy": http://sonyaellenmann.com/2015/04/free-will-mental-illness-a...
Minecraft is coming to China
Come to the reservations and let me introduce you to Indian Tacos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frybread
SaaS Due Diligence: How to Evaluate a SaaS Business Model
I agree. Uncertainty principle is a great word for it. Not sure the authors points are really valid, and the "mongolian" language metaphor he used is a stretch.

VERY capable physicists have been happy using the term uncertainty principle just fine in English and have no misunderstanding of what that means.
Public companies socialize their profits through tax, legal, labor and regulatory compliance. According to the article, Fannie and Freddie are being hit above and beyond those. This is quite unfair to the public shareholders.

If Congress wants the public benefit, then Congress and the White House should have wiped out the public shareholders in 2008 and taken over the companies.
I remember when I first learned that it actually literally meant that two events could be simultaneous in one frame of reference, but non-simultaneous in another. Blew my damn mind.
The author does mention that "It is also used a lot when you are including a CSS framework with very specific rules and it’s just too hard to override them." Which seems like a perfectly valid use case for !important.

In my experience working with a lot of CSS frameworks there are times where not using !important would make the site too brittle if layout had to be changed.

When it comes down to abusing selector nesting vs using !important, use !important.
A bit more than just Express: Mocha, Jade, ejs, superagent, Koa, etc.
> There’s No Such Thing as Free Will

> We’re better off believing in it anyway.

Nihilism is easy to start but hard to finish.
Pure Gonzo journalism
That's not the same thing as a metahistory. It doesn't tell you which commit(s) replaces with commit(s). Mercurial Evolve, for example, will record if a commit was split into several commits or if a commit was folded (squashed) into a single commit. Thus you can trace the history of a commit as it, well, evolves. You can't easily do this with git reflog, because it doesn't store that information.
The article's problem with "uncertain" is that it has connotations of some intelligence comprehending the observed value. When I say, "velocity is uncertain" it seems to mean something like "I am uncertain what the velocity is", but when I say that "velocity is undefined" or "velocity is fuzzy" then it is more clear that I am talking about the velocity itself.

I think "uncertain" is fine. Of course, the particular words are not really that important if you just tell people to read the definitions and equations used in the theory.
Yea, climate change is ultimately a problem of risk and risk management. And the "climate skeptic" position that we can't assess the risks well is just amazing, as if we shouldn't worry because we can't tell how bad it could be, or how likely the worst effects are.
Very interesting and a good read. I was not aware that you could pass an argument in the shebang line.
It does provide you with a recovery key, but that recovery key is useless if the file containing the volume master key is lost or corrupted (as happened here). In FileVault the recovery key is to protect you from losing your password, not from the system nuking the master key.
People who live with roommates an hour away to save money almost certainly don't value their time at $50/hr.
I would ask on these forums:

www.karaoke-tutor.com

www.djchat.com

www.djforums.com

https://serato.com

karaokescene.com

have a switch so you can turn advertising on and off.

give it away free to DJs on the forums and see what happens.

love to see if it's successful.
This seems like trivial advice that has very little impact on day to day programming. "Just try to think of all the possibilities and you'll have fewer bugs."

It would be more useful to have a reference of quality techniques that have at least some data behind their claims of efficiency. I know of this list:

http://pastebin.com/xZ6m4T8Z

I would prefer something with more citations. Does anybody have something like that?
"theory of subjective simultaneity" sounds awesome.
Google’s intelligent assistant, Google Home, was never a top-secret project
You had that right, up until the point you agreed youtube's TOS/EULA. And you are still free to bring a suit under the DMCA ... except you also agreed yourself out of that too.
It sort of is a bad way in that "uncertain" means that an answer exists but we don't know it, whereas the answer really doesn't exist.

However, this is a really minor nitpick and since statistics is used all the time with QM "uncertainty" is just fine. The article is making a mountain out of a semantic molehill.
This post was interesting, though less interesting than I expected based on the title.
The definitions of 'determined' and 'influence' are at odds with one another in your definition.
I don't see how your argument makes sense. Spotify is worse for artists than piracy? Could you elaborate?
What we've learned through neuroscience is definitely invaluable, but it's not like this is a new idea even in the philosophic community. It's telling that the article opens by quoting Kant, who, as Nietzsche said:

> Kant's joke - Kant wanted to prove, in a way that would dumbfound the common man, that the common man was right: that was the secret joke of this soul. He wrote against the scholars in support of the popular prejudice, but for scholars and not for the people.

The idea of free will is a "popular prejudice" that has been supported almost entirely by this type of philosopher. There is a quick way to identify them: the appeal to intuition as the supreme arbiter of truth. Most of western civilization believed in free will (in part for reasons of theology), therefore the belief in free will was inculcated in the populace, therefore philosophers found their intuition ultimately verified the existence of free will and used their incredible intellects to rationalize what that confused idea even was and how it worked in the face of obvious paradoxes.

Many philosophers, for thousands of years, did not accept these arguments. I quote Nietzsche because he is eminently quotable:

> Of these "inward facts" that seem to demonstrate causality, the primary and most persuasive one is that of the will as cause. The idea of consciousness ("spirit") or, later, that of the ego [I] (the "subject") as a cause are only afterbirths: first the causality of the will was firmly accepted as proved, as a fact, and these other concepts followed from it. But we have reservations about these concepts. Today we no longer believe any of this is true.

Nietzsche was in some ways more of a psychologist than a philosopher and is worth reading on those grounds alone. In fact, according to Nietzsche, philosophy is mostly interesting as a reflection of the philosopher's health and therefore his psychology.
Cool, but what does it offer that Pure (4kb doesn't)?

http://purecss.io
Oh, come on.

> Voter registration is unfortunately a front for other malicious activities - such as jury duty, a state-mandated intrusion into my most private information and thoughts

How can you get to that point and not immediately understand that it's obviously satire?
Exactly, which is why this article is tripe. It basically boils down to, "the driver does not control the car, the steering wheel controls where the car goes, not the driver". That's true, but the driver controls the steering wheel, or at least has influence over it.
These days, a significant portion of the mortgage industry is built on rapidly transferring risk onto the Federal Government. Even though agency bonds are sold on the open market, after 2008, we all know those are effectively insured by the Federal Government.

This is a way to pass free money to everyday homebuyers.