skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I think that the problem with Java is not that they are implemented with type erasure (many functional languages do the same and monomorphize only when optimizing), the issue is that this implementation detail is a leaky abstraction in Java.
Every identifier in the system is a bit of documentation. I submit that there's a difference when you name a function:

bool ufklsjblsboabfds(int, int)

and

bool operator<(int, int)

I know that to many, the idea of individual identifiers being documentation is a bit radical, but I think it's the first documentation a developer sees. It's the documentation built into the body of every piece of code that they read and write.
As pjmlp says, Oberon systems were implemented in a GC language. The latest, A2 Bluebottle, runs fast and light despite being written in a safe, GC, system language. Easily more responsive than my Linux box. There's also GC's that can support latencies good enough for soft, resl-time applications.

Far as Go, it's designed to recreate the Oberon-2 experience of Pike. It's basically a modified Oberon. If Oberon can do OS's, then Go can do OS's with some modifications to runtime or something.
Good point -- this has just been added, thanks for your feedback!
https://github.com/eladnava/mailgen#plaintext-e-mails
Any person who was allowed by North Korean government to leave the country expecting them to come back are a spy.
There are ads from The Deck (which is a semi exclusive advertising network) on the sidebar.
I completely agree with the implied valuation, but had slight pause as to what this money could be used for.

I think Snapchat has had mild success with monetizing Discover and Stories. However, I think correct course of action is moving from a incentivizing content distribution role to incentivizing content creation role. For example creating partnerships. What you have right now are middling ready to explode and fame driven celebrities like YouTube had before partnership incentives. Snapchat is exactly there in their timeline.
Some employees likely came in married already. And some will never be married. And some more might even marry another employee so the cost is split across two.

Seems like an interesting perk. I'm a bit jealous, mine cost almost $40k
That solution is pretty silly anyway. TSA employees have already been found "connected to people on terrorist watch lists". Granted, those watchlists are mostly BS because they contain millions of people, where most are probably innocent. But if a terrorist group actually wanted to do an attack and that proposed policy was in place, I could see how they could get someone on the inside to just let them pass through.

But the point here isn't that this specific policy is terrible, but that any such type of policies are ineffective, much like the author says about the liquid bans and whatnot.
Do you want to see the overall size of the pool? That's simply shares outstanding. Do you want to see shares owned by specific people? That's only going to be there for the largest holders. Keep in mind shares outstanding is almost certainly larger than the existing options held by employees for a few reasons. First, people probably haven't vested their options completely in many/all cases. Secondly, some reserve is maintained for anticipated hiring.

The S-1 doesn't reveal every shareholder or potential shareholder (either unexercised option holder or still vesting). You can get into this somewhat when you look at compensation expenses. Some portion of that is shares granted -- but that's only a retrospective number.
Excluding the possibility of a laptop getting lost or stolen.
That depends on the bankruptcy court. Maybe he has enough money and is happier this way? Like I said, anyone other than Bolea arguing this is full of crap. He's the only one who gets to decide what is or is not in his interests.

Until and unless Bolea says otherwise, the uninformed speculation to the contrary is simply absurd.
Flyer beware eh? My dad suggested a button in the cockpit that would de-pressurize the plane and not drop oxygen in the event of an emergency. Then bad thing starts "boom" turn off the air and everyone passes out. I pointed out that bad guys probably would have some sort of portable oxygen if they knew about it. So maybe it works once.

I agree with the author's thesis that if it costs flyers 10x the effort to fly than it does the evil doers to do evil, then the evil doers are winning that battle. And the existing practices are due for a new look over. But not sure that eliminating them completely will achieve what you want.
That doesn't make those examples a good reason to do this.
I disagree - "does this kid work hard?" is actually a super valuable question to have answered.

Remember all those startup articles that say "ideas are worthless" and "implementation is everything"?

School is a lot like that, and it's a valid measure. It's the rest of us that have a "fundamental misattribution error" in thinking grades are a measure of intelligence.
I believe subjectivity exists, but not in its supremacy over objectivity.

My objections on the topic are fairly simple:

* We shouldn't create laws around activities or identities that cannot be objectively measured.

* Peoples personally held identities shouldn't be foisted up such that everyone must accept them unquestionably.

People should be free to love, fuck, marry whomever they want and express themselves in whatever degree of masculinity or femininity they are comfortable with. If we had widely known gender-neutral pronouns, I would use them.
Yes, Starbucks parallelizes, as should the TSA. It doesn't matter whether it's in one building or many.
Mindfulness 2.0 – Get early access to free mindfulness coaching
Also, always keep in mind: "Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent." - Keynes.
Controlling the Pace Doesn't Help NBA Teams Win Games
Sure that's what they tell us. In fact the spoils system served an important purpose: it limited the size of the executive branch, since you can only hire so many people at once. So much for that.
Overslept from Overwatch shirt
One infamous example being the consonant car crash that is 'strengths'.
But if I commit on a whim, e.g. before jumping on the plane, how can I then patch to separate some changes in two commits?
She didn't go into the details, unfortunately. I also doubt she was responsible for making the final call as to whether or not a person is a security risk -- more about allowing higher-up folks to keep their eyes in the right places. I imagine the North Korean spy thing was a trend she had corroborated with higher-ups rather than determined completely on her own.
I think deep down a lot of people there realize the stupidity of what they are saying. But they also know any lapse or any deviation from the "rules" would put them back on the street or back to flipping burgers.

I had an interesting encounter with a TSA agent. He flagged my bag because I had 10 notebooks in there ( I took them with me to read over my notes over a couple of years back ). He thought it was strange. So I told him, yeah, it is programming stuff. He said he likes programming, and would like to do it again sometime, asked what languages a popular these days (he knew about C++ only). I told him to try Python for example.

At first I was annoyed at him for bothering me over stupid notebooks, it was ridiculous. But then felt kind of sorry. Here he is, thinking he wants to develop software, yet he has to flag down bags and look for shampoo bottles, notebooks, multi-tools sift through people's dirty laundry and so on.
Sure. My answer depends on data that shows that this rate of assault/etc is likely higher for these people, and how much higher.

Without that data, i can't really say anything at all.

Every piece of research i've ever seen basically says "intuition is wrong here, they don't actually assault people at a higher rate".

IE people who repeatedly are arrested for dealing drugs are not likely to have a higher rate of assaulting people while driving ubers.

But, again, i'm data driven on this, if we have data/research, and the scientific consensus is that they are worse, and significantly worse, than yeah, maybe it's worth doing something.

From what i know, most of this is driven by gut feelings and politics, and not actual data.
I think the whole ban, gave the terrorists the bright idea of bringing liquid bombs in the first place.
That makes much more sense but wasn't clear from the way you put that.
"We screen using all available research on driver safety. What you are asking us to do will actually make you less safe. It is also deeply unethical."
> we (the global we) have way overvalued the piece of paper that we get upon graduation

Well, that's subjective. It's meaningful to some people and not to others

Schools aren't meant to be perfect. Reputation is meant to help people identify trustworthy parties more quickly. That doesn't mean you can't re-scrutinize a school or person yourself. It's simply one optional filter. Some people find this more useful than others.

If you don't want to pay attention to certificates, that's your choice. People who attended these institutions may care and it's their right to defend their degree from dilution if they wish.
Specifically about that type of person you mentioned that is against something vehemently until they are personally related to the side of the issue they opposed, I can't help myself but feel more disdain for these individuals than if they had continued holding their prejudiced/bigoted views because their transformation seems incredibly intellectually dishonest. I liken it to the type of person that apologizes profusely after they have been caught red-handed with some wrongdoing, but they never once apologized or confessed during the time they were doing it. In other words, they aren't sorry they did it, they're sorry they got caught doing it.

Maybe my views on the issue are too harsh, but those are my own prejudices. I do think that people can have genuine transformations of views, but it doesn't sit well with me when it only came about because they were cornered into it.
"it is a good precaution."

Based on what evidence?
I love that they're using actual network data to build this list, not just a "who's who" based on someone's general impressions. There is so much potential in applying this kind of network analysis to the GitHub dataset, and I think we're only seeing the beginning with projects like this one, as well as ones like https://libraries.io/ and http://depsy.org.

One thing I missed in this writeup was more explanation of their methods. For instance, why were they only able to make gender guesses for 2mil out of 7mil users? That's unusually low for name-based gender identification. I'm guessing this is because many GitHub accounts didn't have first names, but would be great to actually see.

I'd also love to see the percentage of women they found out of those 2 million. Otherwise it's "Top 100 out of the ???? women on GitHub." Hopefully this will be addressed in the followup posts they promised. I'll be looking forward to them.

[disclosure: I'm a PI on http://depsy.org, which is funded by the National Science Foundation. And one of the gals on this list is my co-PI]
I disagree with the given metaphor of TDD as scientifically falsifiable. TDD posits the answers first, and builds a theory around it. As new answers/unit tests are put into place, the theory/program becomes more complicated.

Given enough parameters (or complications), it's possible to fit any set of known data points.

What's missing, to be falsifiable, is to pose a set of questions/tests which you expect to succeed if the theory/software is working. These might include new edge cases, scalability testing, and performance testing that fit better outside of TDD, which focuses on fast, short tests, and especially outside of red-green-refactor, since these validations tests are supposed to be green-green-green and never red.

I, for example, have a set of tests which require loading >4GB of data, to test that I didn't use a 32 bit offset in places where I should have had 64 bit offset. These tests take minutes to run, and are implemented as system tests through the command-line API, not unit tests.

> Following this way of delivering software, TDD is one of the practices that is usually overlooked, as inexperienced and non technical PMs, like to believe that writing comprehensive tests is very time consuming and it does not really add lots of business value in the final solution!

To address that point more directly, "testing" is much more than TDD. I believe after-the-fact tests are more akin to tests for falsifiability than TDD is.

The ultimate test for many programs is, do users use it? (Or "do people buy it?") That certain is one way to judge the validity of the program, with a way which is outside the TDD framework.
I tried a few different things and couldn't make it work. I think the problem is that the audio data is getting sent as a text websocket message rather than binary message. I got a whole bunch of "error: stream did not contain valid UTF-8" and "No JSON object could be decoded" errors that I think both came from the remote end.
https://player.vimeo.com/video/167126696
Ironically, the screening was originally done by the airport/airlines. Then came the calls to "federalize" it, and the TSA was the result.
I'm pretty sure you can bring empty glass bottles through security in the US.

Anyway, like I said in a sibling comment, I'm not defending the asinine rules, just saying I actually found very few items that would/should have been stopped by TSA when I went through a similar exercise.
WelpConf: How I Learned to Start Worrying and Fear the Container
Ask HN: Anyone working on apps for the MaidSafe platform?
Hi,

I get updates from the MaidSafe forum regularly in which there's always a "Dev Update" thread detailing progress made on getting the platform ready for launch. It appears that good progress is happening on a regular basis.

I'd like to hear from HN'ers regarding current/future plans to write apps for deployment on MaidSafe. Does anyone see this as something which will do well once ready for prime-time? Is anyone approaching this as something that'll one day gain substantial traction?
Integration machine. Make sure that your QA machine is reflected onto an intermediate machine that lets your coders perform unit tests on to shake out the configuration differences between Dev and Live. This way, when QA comes up with a bug, you have a degree of confidence that it doesn't have to do with configuration.
Just because they don't move doesn't mean they aren't unhappy with higher taxes. Also doesn't mean they don't want to move.

A more interesting angle would be to track productivity and financial returns of the elites under multiple tax schemes.
Just because I sell an expensive product doesn't give you the right to rip me off nor does it make me guilty of anything. I'm fairly sick of this "no one does wrong" attitude and the complete lack of personal responsibility here. No one is pointing a gun at these kids to come to the states and commit fraud.
I fail to see how he'd be an opportunist considering there's a very real chance of it happening.
OK, I see what the problem is. This is the type signature for the body method:

fn body<B: Into<Body<'a>>>(self, body: B) -> RequestBuilder<'a>

The RequestBuilder struct tries to be clever: it just keeps a pointer to what you want the body to be rather than taking ownership of it or copying it. So when you say that "req = req.body(&s)" you've given the request a pointer to your string, but that string is freed inside that if-block. I don't see an obvious fix right now, but I'll update this is I see something.
When I say unsolvable, I mean that you can't solve for the speed of a brick sliding down an inlined plane by considering the electrostatic interactions between the ~10^17 pairs of interacting atoms per square centimetre of contact surface. It's just unsolvable in practice.

But the effective formula that the magnitude of the friction force equals a material constant times the magnitude of the normal force from the plane onto the brick gives you a very simple model (solvable with pen and paper).
I never liked the line of reasoning that driving is more dangerous than flying, and therefore people shouldn't be afraid of flying. It's flawed reasoning. It doesn't take into account the actual reasons people are afraid of flying and not of driving.

Sure, statistically more people die in car accidents. True. But each one of us has some measure of control over that. We all believe (even if erroneously) that we can avoid this because we control the wheel, and we can choose to pay close attention to the road and make good decisions and we trust in our own ability to avoid an accident.

In a plane, there is nothing we can do but pray. The outcome is in the hands of pilot and we can do nothing. And that's what's terrifying: not statistics, but helplessness.

Indeed, when I get in the car as a passenger with a young driver who I haven't driven with before, my misgivings are definitely greater than those I have getting on a plane. Same principle.
Hmm, I'm not sure about the pdf thing, but it has a fairly small number of core features[0], which are all documented and can be browsed off-line, and searched through from within the minimalistic editor that it comes with.

You could try looking at the source code of the documentation[1]. It uses PHP to render the site, although the actual documentation of the API is XML[2]

[0] https://processing.org/reference/

[1] https://github.com/processing/processing-docs

[2] https://github.com/processing/processing-docs/tree/master/co...
I don't understand this. Is it a land-grab focus?

Why do so many software companies focus solely on growth? A traditional business with $166 million in revenue is huge. Why are investors not asking for a return on their investments already?

Don't investors usually look for a return on their investments within 2-3 years?
Sounds like somebody spent a lot of money without doing any research.

I must have tried samples of a half-dozen different brands before buying enough LED bulbs to retrofit all of my ceiling cans. Actually I sort of wasted my time, because the (subsidized) $2.99 65w replacements from the hardware store on the corner proved to be as good as any of them. No failures a year later (N = about 36) so they seem to be working out OK.
>Because I have no reason to believe biological gender exists separate for biological sex.

Most traits associated with sex are not universally determined by sex. One example in humans is males that have XX chromosomes[0]. For another example see AIS[1].

We observe more than two genders expressed in non-human animals:

>Side-blotched lizards are notable for having the highest number of distinct male and female morphs or "genders" within a species: three male and two female. [2]

It is extremely unlikely that given the diversity of phenotype expression we see in life there would be no cases in which sex does not match gender. A claim that sex and gender match perfectly in all cases requires enormous evidentary support as it contradicts much of current science and biology.

>No one can point to it nor create a test for it.

You can ask someone, that is generally how we determine how much pain someone is in.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XX_male_syndrome

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgen_insensitivity_syndrom...

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Side-blotched_lizard#Genders
So basically the last two Presidents?
Haha, thanks for spotting that! It should lead to the link in the above comment of course.
Traumatic hemisomato-tmesis: a case report and review of the literature (1989) [pdf]
They bitch about the obvious reddit stuff, but do they realize that most of their content comes from reddit? What happens when most of their posts disappear?
The only thing that ends anything the government does, is slow, steady, continuous pressure.

Eventually someone who wants to be elected will grab on to the idea and make it a tenet of their platform.

This is how anything ends in government that can't be proven (by proven I mean with loss of lives or some other very serious consequence, not simply proven ineffective) to be more harm than good.
Robots work for free. They aren't developed, assembled, and maintained for free. So that brings us back to the original question: With what money is that former truck driver supposed to start their robot trucking business?
There are several jobs that don't require high levels of trust, like an Uber driver. Many entry level jobs, like: fast food, gas stations, etc. The type of convictions are very relevant here: theft is very different than assault with a deadly weapon.
Right, but the reason for the TSA's existence isn't blowing planes out of the skies, but using them to attack buildings.

I don't think that is true. Maybe the threat of kamikaze hijackings was behind some of the push, but it is far from the only reason.

Plus TSA isn't all that different from the old private security guard system we used have have pre-911. The extra screenings are entirely related to specific bomb--not hijacking--threats. Shoes off? because of the shoe bomber. No liquids because of the liquid bomb plot.
I completely agree. Manning was clearly well-intentioned, but she leaked information including diplomatic cables that was not relevant to war crimes or any such malfeasance. The only effect of those leaks was to hurt the interests of the United States.

Her case is certainly much less clear-cut than Snowden's, as she was not a contractor and was more likely to be covered by whistleblower protection going through channels.

But realistically, we all know that the US government was never, ever, going to release that "Collateral Murder" video.

The great shame of all this is that whistleblower protections and mandatory escalations haven't been expanded so the next generation of do-gooders can work within the system to right these wrongs.
> backed by C++ (née Rust)

"née" means "originally called" (usually someone's maiden name). I don't think C++ used to be called Rust.
Only stockholders >5% are required to show up in an S-1
Well, I was hoping to point out that "offensive" wasn't relevant. The trademark question is based on "disparaging", not "offensive".
> It's unusual to try to pull that off when you're unprofitable.

It may be unusual, but to me it seems even more important to have uncontested control when the common shareholders may be angry.
How good of a guess do you need? If you want something that's +/- 50% you can probably do that pretty easily. +/- 10% is probably impossible at this stage. They will do a roadshow (fly around the country literally pitching large investors on buying their stock). After the roadshow they will gather data about the interest, and where it's from. Institutional investors are usually preferred over retail because they are less likely to immediately flip the shares -- but institutions may not pay as much. They will hope to have far more interest than they have shares allocated for the IPO, which will allow them to raise the price (stokes interest in the stock, which helps support the price once they're public). There's a lot that goes into this and I'm only marginally more knowledgeable than you are, so I'm probably missing 90% of the interesting stuff.

If you are a shareholder and asking from that perspective, or know any employees who may hold options, you should keep in mind that there will be an associated lockup for 180 days after IPO, during which time the stock will probably do all sorts of "interesting" things. Predicting the price it will be when the lockup expires is beyond anyone's ability. :)
Yes, sorry. This is the one I'm using: http://www.amazon.com/SainSmart-Sensitivity-Arduino-Mega2560...

Just search for analog water sensor and you'll see a few like this labeled by different companies. There are some that are probably cheaper.