skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Ain't no hive mind. Different topics attract the attention of different people, and thus you get varying opinions.

Why pulls and such are so damn hard to get right. Just the way the question is asked will get a change in response. And that is on top of the issues of race, class, and whatsnot that you want to get a representative mix of to get as objective a result as possible.
The Nitty-Gritty: sweetgreen
Based on my experience, when adaptive cruise control is braking, manually braking has unexpected consequences.

A tap can disable the current braking completely, resulting in an unexpected change in velocity. Frequently a bad idea, since the ACC is braking for a reason.

Applying normal braking pressure can add your braking pressure to the existing braking pressure, resulting in an abnormally large braking force, sometimes enough to initiate ABS on dry roads. Very disorientating, and it makes you unpredictable to drivers behind you.

The solution is to tap, then press a second later, but this requires you to be aware of the need to take manual control early in the situation.
I understand that cruise control is not autonomous driving. Still, I would expect cruise control to NOT crash into a stationary object right in front of the car. If you read the disclaimers of TrafficAware in the manual, the only possible conclusion seems to be that you simply cannot use this feature. If you can't trust the system to brake in time, it means you have to do the braking yourself. Every time.

The bottom line: TrafficAware is bad technology.
Humans have been making mistakes with every new assistive technology. When ABS was optional, people with ABS cars would pump the brakes and end up not stopping in time. With cruise control, there are urban legends of RV drivers going back to make a sandwich.

Eventually people figure this stuff out, but as was discussed in other Tesla threads, there is a risk of entering an uncanny valley where it's actually more dangerous to have the assistive tech in an emergency, but safer in non-emergencies.
A strong president could probably do something here. I think the original intent of the law was that they'd issue guidelines for airports to follow, rather than do the inspections themselves. So a president might be able to fire everyone and replace them with a tiny agency that occasionally sends inspectors to Boeing to check that the windows and frame are bulletproof and that the cockpit is reinforced.
Sign Their Yearbook
there is no trend
Or use this alternative (quoting from the article)

>Deploy more TSA staff overseas — in the Middle East, Africa, Asia and South America ...
I use SelfControl on the Mac for that. Made it so that I can block distracting sites for weeks at a time.
A Rock-Sorting Robot
This is why I'm so gung ho about Elm.

To create a proper React single page app, you need React, Redux, lodash, react-router, webpack, Immutable.js, babel, npm, redux-thunk, isomorphic-fetch, webpack-hot-middleware, and ton of boilerplate and configuration (which everyone does differently). You can try to assemble this yourself, or choose one of hundreds of starter projects on Github.

A comparable Elm app is a lot simpler. It consists of Elm, a router such as elm-transit-router, and maybe webpack if you want to watch and minify your compiled javascript. Especially now with the new 0.17, Elm forces you to use the standard Elm Architecture, so you don't waste any time thinking about how to structure your app and there's very little boilerplate as a result. On top of this, Elm is statically typed, functional, and simply a joy to work with.
How to Measure App Traffic from Google’s App Indexing
>Reproducible is talking about the process or steps needed to make a machine. You do not need to repeat the steps to produce the first machine to produce the second machine. You can simply clone the first machine, and Docker makes this very easy to do.

Cloning is not the answer since it's all or nothing -- where reproducibility can be achieved piecemeal.

Only offering cloning means that starting with the same initial Dockerfile and making some needed updates to it, one can't be sure that the NON updated parts will be producible. So you don't get flexible reuse.

Only offering cloning also means that when you need to update only a part (e.g. because of security reasons) you can't just use the same dockerfile with the changed component and be sure that you'll get an otherwise identical system. So you don't get flexible updating.

Cloning also required an already set-in-stone configured system to be the prototype.

But until one reaches that, they have to experiment with various configurations (to end with the specific Docker image they want). Without reproducibility, they can't be guaranteed that their various test configurations under test are the same and only their latest changes differ. Perhaps another thing they left as is broke too.

>I don't know of any big technology company that doesn't design their live infrastructure around ephemeral machines cloned from a template.

That's just an argument from popularity. And not necessarily a popularity they opted for, while also being provided with the alternative.

That they use "ephemeral machines cloned from a template" is just what they have to do -- not what would be ideal.

Besides, reproducibility doesn't preclude cloning as part of the process -- it's a superset of it, offering way more flexibility.

>I could simply create a new clone, get it working, then tag it as the next release.

But if you mess with the clone it's not a clone anymore. And if a whole team has to mess with the clone over some period of time to update or fix it, there's hell to keep track what went on.

Nobody argues that you can't simple install cloned images as they are.
Don't be surprised, the whole point of an IPO is to raise money to fund business growth.
South Park is actually fully CG. Done in Maya IIRC. The original short it spawned from was construction paper being moved around on an animation stand, but now it's completely virtual.

The entire industry does not do it like this. I worked in the industry around the turn of the century and saw a lot of new shows starting up on full-digital workflows. I am really surprised that it is taking some overseas shops this long to switch from roughing the animation on paper to roughing the animation in the computer.

Building it in 3D and making the computer "draw" it is another thing. I mean, we still have people doing beautiful stop-motion work because that's what they like the look of, even though CG movies tend to have a similar look. It's very much an aesthetic choice. It's art, and sometimes art involves weird choices.
Traditionally an IPO was a mechanism for raising funds for continued growth. I know VC backing has been the more favorable mechanism of late, but being profitable has never really been a trigger for an IPO.
Interesting, but I wonder how profitable these kinds of micro-services will end up being. Seems like the margins must be pretty low, and I'm not sure what unique value you could deliver that a company couldn't more easily extract directly (by buying their own sensors, for example).

I've seen translation offered as another use-case of 21, but that seems like another mechanical turk kind of operation where there really isn't much added value outside of the low fee costs of using BTC as a currency.
This is a general problem with any punitive measure. There will be some false positives (unfair punishments).

I actually do know someone who was not able to get a CS degree because of 'cheating'. His story was that he was working in a group, got verbal clearance from his professor that this kind of collaboration was acceptable, and when that auto-cheating-analysis tool flagged each group members work, the professor claimed not to have said that and was uninterested in fixing the problem.

So, this absolutely does happen. OTOH, I've never personally had any experience with 'borderline' cases. There were enough cut-and-dried cases to keep me busy.

I'm sorry you were unfairly punished.
It might be worth having a small panel or advisory committee with good intelligence clearance, which periodically evaluates aviation threats and realistic ways to handle them. In cases where there are no good solutions, as you suggest, no security theater will be engaged in.
Because Telsa wants to make you think its doing something that BWM isn't. But it's entirely sales puffery.
Docker IDA – open-source tool to make reverse engineering on a large-scale
Many/most of the risks outline in an S-1 are boilerplate like this. Obviously future financial results are unclear.
Allow editing comments past the 5 minute grace period.
It's a bit of a paradox. The purpose of screening isn't really to confiscate dangerous materials, but to prevent people from ever bringing it. If you have a ban on liquids, then an attacker isn't going to bother bringing a liquid bomb. All liquids you encounter will be benign. Yet that doesn't mean that the ban is useless: if someone wants to bring a liquid bomb, then if you remove the liquid ban they will bring it.

I think the liquid ban is pretty silly, but that's because the whole idea of a liquid bomb seems to be unworkable, and there are better ways to handle this stuff. The fact that confiscated liquids are handled so casually is not actually an argument against the ban.
It's not Trump's guts that anyone is worried about, it's his narcissistic, babbling, bigoted brains.
This drumbeat that Uber needs to do background checks is so incredibly silly and naive.

The fact that an Uber driver killed someone does not mean anything about Uber drivers. The fact that this person drove for Uber is completely incidental to their behavior. The idea that we need to start imposing regulations to 'solve' this complete non-problem is staggeringly stupid.

If this were actually a problem, and people actually cared about this, then Lyft would start doing extensive background checks and everyone would switch. But they don't. Instead they ask the government to impose regulation generalizing from the fear of isolated incidents.

Nobody asks the only question that actually matters: Does being an Uber driver make a violent criminal more likely to commit a violent crime? If the answer is 'no', then the only reason for sanitizing Uber drivers is to avoid these people committing crimes outside their own neighborhoods, with all of the racial and socioeconomic implications that has.

The soccer-momification (let's define that precisely as acts of security theater: the TSA, licensure of taxi drivers, licensure of hair stylists, etc..) of business is a profound drag on our economy and society, and more likely than not creates more violent crime by preventing criminals from pulling themselves up out of poverty.
Companies like "Vertemedia" still don't get it.

The internet is not a television. Many people gave up TV years ago and will never go back.

Interruptive advertising is a thing of the past.

Also, they didn't mention the history of Hulu and adblockers. About six months ago, for $4 extra per month, you could watch Hulu without ads. Best service I ever upgraded, I paid without a second thought.
> I’d advocate that certain travelers, at TSA spotters’ discretion, be exempt from screening altogether. Personnel could be trained to choose certain passengers deemed lowest-threat, pull them out of line and allow them to pass.

Bruce Schneier's proposal is essentially do 0 profiling and do entirely random enhanced screening to minimize the potential for exploiting profiling.

https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-trouble-with-profili...

https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2012/05/to_profile_...
And we should set our expectations much higher. It should be possible for TSA throughput to be as good as Starbucks. They both have trained people do a complex operation involving special-purpose machines, and the revenue per customer is similar (Starbucks around $4, TSA gets $5.60 per passenger-leg), and the queue is rarely more than a few minutes at Starbucks.

If you look at the incentive structures, the results aren't surprising though:

Starbucks: longer lines => people go elsewhere => less revenue (daily)

TSA: longer lines => traveler complaints => more funding (yearly)
It's just absurd that a company can't be profitable with 28M paying users some of which include Uber and WhatsApp.
I'm pretty sure that Trump is going to be pro expanding anything that involves subcontractors, especially construction subcontractors. A vote for Trump is a vote for Berlusconi.
Have you dropped by IRC? Always happy to help answer questions in real-time.

> how to to either move a variable out of a block,

Blocks evaluate to a value, so if it's a movable type, it will move.

let x = {
let s = String::new();
// stuff happens with s

s
};

Here, s will move out of the block, and into x.

> more importantly define a lifetime on `Ok(r) => r,` so that the result can escape the block.

Lifetimes cannot extend the life of something, they are descriptive, not prescriptive. So I think you might be trying something that's impossible...
Looking at their escalating losses, I have to wonder if this IPO is a desperation play after failing to raise private money at an acceptable valuation in the current climate.
The article isn't accurate, here's the study: http://www.demos.co.uk/project/misogyny-on-twitter/
I'm way out of my league, but would it be possible to distribute a Docker container with all the boilerplate? Tutorial users could run that at the start, then do the "fun stuff".
Ya unfortunately 'strong' presidents also tend to be authoritarian, and love things like the TSA.
Yes, because they've cut sales/marketing/g&a hugely as % of sales. Their opex profile now looks more like a normal, mature software company. Pity they still (and prolly always will) spend nearly half their revenues on connection/network fees.

Sucks to be a phone company / utility. Difficult business to rock even when you're an amazing, innovative, unique company like twilio.
I think "Ponzi Scheme" is both too harsh, and too generous.
Telecom/communication services like Twilio's are =extremely= sticky.
Show HN: EncryptUs, usable and free email encryption
Air travel has grown about 20% since 2001, so no.
Finished this yesterday. Works as a proxy encrypting/decrypting email for any POP3/IMAP email client, so the the setup and usability is really simple. Advantages - works with your existing email addresses/email client, no need to do anything different to send/receive email, everything stays local to your PC. Just Windows at the moment, but Mac and Linux coming soon, then mobile.
They don't have the resources to actually check every bottle for explosives. That's why it's a blanket ban. Note that if you have a good reason to bring a liquid (because it's medically necessary, for example) then they will let you take it through, but they will test it. And if it tests positive for explosives, then you can bet that they neither toss the bottle in the trash nor allow you to proceed to your gate.

The liquid ban itself doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but if you grant their IMO faulty assumptions (that liquid bombs are a big threat), the way they carry it out is actually pretty reasonable.
Plex Geeks Dive into Manufacturing Technology
Two of them are circa 2012 Samsung SCH-S720C (1GHz CPU / 512MB RAM), running Gingerbread. I don't want to pull the third one down to look, but it's a little newer, maybe a Galaxy S3.

They're not nearly as old as the whitebox, but they're old in smartphone terms, and there are millions of them floating around that can be had for dirt cheap. Mine are just phones that I upgraded from, they were doing nothing but gathering dust.
Well you can generate HTML "email" if you don't want anyone to read it. email is not html, it's text.
As a naive nincompoop, is there any way for me to guess the initial price of a share when they become available?
I disagree. Forth is cute and you'll learn some stuff, but you won't become a compiler wizard. You _need_ to learn how to do parsers and run-time systems and all the rest.

Besides, it's fun!
Usually discrete math as the absolute bedrock, then a good understanding of automata theory.
The blog post didn't touch on it in detail, but this allows a single Kubernetes cluster to span multiple zones.
ISTM this comment originally had something about Trump? Anyway it isn't clear to me that even an imperial president unilaterally could fire most of the personnel in any agency, even one as useless as TSA or CIA.
I love goats. Out of curiosity, would you be willing to share how well goat attack packs have been selling?
Custom software development. A lot of Web and Mobile applications, but we have dabbled in business analysis tools, scripts for data collection/digestion, and automated deployment pipelines.
Statwing (YC S12) Acquired by Qualtrics
The deception is really in the URL. If I see an address ending with .jpg, I expect it to load a raw JPEG, and I have some implicit expectations following that that are being broken if the site serves HTML instead.

Also, it's actually much simpler than the discussion makes it to be. Just look at the big picture. The user wants a picture, free of irrelevant or harmful bullshit. The site promises that raw image, by means of providing what looks like a direct URL. Then, it does not deliver on the promise, serving the irrelevant and/or harmful bullshit along with the picture. It's pretty clear that one side is trying to exploit the other one.
> My only concern is that I don't see how an IDE not developed in partnership with Facebook is going to succeed as I'd expect it to always be playing catchup with new features.

New features for React Native are extensively discussed on the github repo and in the Facebook contributors' group before making it into a release. And at this point, a substantial minority of features are proposed, implemented and sometimes even merged by non-Facebook contributors. It takes a lot of work to stay on top of all the changes of course, but being developed outside of Facebook shouldn't make that process harder than it would be anyway.
Triangle opportunity?
There exists a spectrum from full keystroke history to squashed commit. Squashed commits throws away information. It is lost forever. Full keystroke contains all that information information but it is incredibly noisy. Per commit state snapshot is a pretty happy median. It doesn't tell you all the things that keystrokes could tell you. But it's very easy to use. And tells you a lot of things that squashed commits does not.

The obvious answer is to squash commits, but keep the information. Intermediate commits aren't needed very often. But they can be exceptionally useful when they are needed. Especially if the commits were from an employee who is no longer working at your private company.

Git still needs a p4 timelapse view tool. It's wonderful. All that tool needs is a little check box called "expand squash". That's the best of both worlds. Everyone gets what they want. But that tool and checkbox don't exist. So given the choice between squashed vs unsquashed I'll take unsquashed 100% of the time. At a private company that is. Open source projects, especially large projects, might choose differently.
The nice thing about git is that your commits can be garbage. Until you push (or, much less commonly on most teams, let someone pull from you), your local commits can be an utter disaster, and it just does not matter. From a purely technical standpoint, there is no excuse for messy logs. Any mess is the result of the user, not the software.

The problem is that using rebase to clean up your local commit log before sharing with others isn't the easiest thing to learn. Even once you supposedly "know what you are doing", it is still possible to make a mistake. Git has a lot of amazing functionality, but the majority of commands are not intuitive to use out of the box. Even GUI frontends to git don't manage to simplify the more complex commands all that much. I'd like to believe I'm an "intermediate" git user, but I run into issues often enough that I'm sure I overestimate my knowledge.

Most teams I've seen using git wind up using only the core commands (clone, commit, fetch/pull, merge, push), essentially using git as a drop-in replacement for svn without taking advantage of the additional possibilities git offers. Again, this is because becoming a git guru is a steep learning curve. It doesn't matter if 19 people on a project know everything about git; it only takes a single 20th person to make a tangled mess out of a centrally shared repository. I've spent many an afternoon working to rectify botched rebases and similar issues.

One example is forcing a push for a specific branch, knowing that the resulting destruction of history is desired and not harmful to others; only to forget to specify the branch name on command line, which results in force pushing all branches. Whoops!
Snapchat and the like are low hanging fruit. Someone should start a DAO where users can either see ads or pay a small annual fee to pay for the service and also invest in their own security and sanity.

There are programmers who are interested, there is a public that could be convinced. All we need really is to solve the human problem or aligning money with incentives.

There should be a high quality social network where you use personal filters rather than relying on central intelligence to do the heavy lifting.

Rather than be beholden to people who are willing to invest billions in a free product so that they can traffic ads and/or data mine.
Microsoft and Facebook to build subsea cable across Atlantic
> Many such languages exist. The one I like to use, Common Lisp (and specifically Clozure Common Lisp) not only has a C FFI, it has an Objective-C FFI, which allows me to easily write Cocoa applications and leverage all of the power of both C and ObjC libraries on OS X with all of the efficiency of C. No wheel-reinventing required. And yes, everything Just Works. (With QuickLisp it really Just Works!)

Not sure in what parallel universe starting to write software in CL, and getting hundreds of thousands of C programmers to adopt it doesn't mean "tons of EXTRA effort".

Heck, even the re-training required is millions of man-hours.

Even worse for the other proposed solution, to have legacy programs (that is: 99.9999% of available software that's not in the "NEW LANGUAGE") written in different languages to interact with each other via language-independent mechanisms like pipes and sockets.

And all that to gain what?

Supposedly it was to have a language where compilers could take advantage of the superior design to be even faster and more optimized than C, and you propose CL, which, after 30+ years, is slower or at best equal-ish to C.
We do audit the TSA. They fail about 95% of the time (67 fails out of 70 tests) in official audits: http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/01/politics/tsa-failed-undercover...
Something like suspendLayout(), resumeLayout()
I guess this GUI technique is like... 50 years old?
What I meant is that these characteristics were observed in only the small number of workplaces that have employed me. And I could have gone on to correlate these behaviors to other characteristics but purposely didn't do that. More importantly, I could elicit corroboration from others who worked in these locations including the woman who first pointed this trend out to me.

Of course, the better technique would be to collect aanonymized data from a wide range of HR departments and look for statistical trends. When complete you'd still see biases ... just like only studying trends by analyzing Twitter.
A large setup cost discourages you from creating many small projects; from creating experiments that may/may not pan out. This is why the browser/text editor flow of development will (eventually) win out. Hopefully people working in these toolchains are at least using some boilerplate projects or generators that cover 90% of cases.
This guy is a joke. As long he works at Newegg I'll never buy from them.
Bitcoin's “Political Neutrality Is a Myth” – Amir Taaki Interview