skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
In this case, it isn't the frequency that is the killer so much as the decibel level. High frequency or low frequency, 235 Db is a lot of energy being emmitted. In addition, the higher frequency of the sonar, the more quickly the sound tends to attenuate, which is why the lower and medium frequencies work best for those sensors.
3d printers are in a weird transitional state. We are long past the point where every prototype shop has a decent 3d printer, yet we're still (seemingly) years away from the point where every home and business has a 3d printer. A big part of this problem is that there really aren't that many obviously useful things to print.
>Choice means interoperability

"This word that doesn't mean this other word means this other word."

What?
In other industries and sciences people would look at facts, sample companies and practitioners and form hypothesis.

In our industry people with no broad experience formulate what they think the world should look like and go around trying to convince others.
FDA Approves New Nutrition Panel That Highlights Sugar Levels
Cooked food often have much more digestible calories than raw food. Because the heat breaks down complex molecules and make them easier to digest. This isn't reflected at all in these measurements.

This is why it's real hard to stay healthy on a raw food diet.

I learned this from this book, which I really recommend:

https://www.amazon.com/Catching-Fire-Cooking-Made-Human-eboo...
ESET Nod32 Antivirus 9 License Key 2017 Free Download
You are one case.
The obvious next step is ipv6 address hopping in a /64 dedicated to the machine in question I guess...
A Response to “Why Most Unit Testing Is Waste”
"But the world remembers only bold successes, aka history is written by the victors." --me
I agree with the essence of your argument (and congratulations on the training).

I do, however, fear i might've brushed over the essential idea - rather than provide training, wearable's should provide constant 'feedback' if you will to the user, while also providing partial/full assistance to whatever the objective might be. To use an analogy, if you were to draw an imperfect curve, the wearable would 'smooth' out the curve as it was drawn - providing training as a side-effect (muscle-memory, if you will), but that isn't why it would be used (it would be used so you could draw better curves, and maximize your potential as an artist [or in reality, as a worker etc]).

I work with exos., so if you have any other questions, I can probably answer them.
CUDA-8 RC Now Available
Throw away tests that haven't failed in a year. That just a ridiculous point IMO. Written properly tests act as perfect docimentation for the system. So just because a screen or a process hasn't changed in a year, so therefore the tests have been consistently passing does not mean you throw the tests away! You never know when someone will need to maintain that piece of the system.
"Tag along clauses ... to prevent them from blocking acquisitions ..."

I think you mean 'drag-along' rather than 'tag-along'.

Tag-along clauses give minority shareholders the right (but not the obligation) to join a deal negotiated by majority shareholders. Their intention is to prevent minority shareholders from being screwed.

Drag-along clauses give majority shareholders the right to force minority shareholders to participate in a deal. Their intention is to prevent minority shareholders from blocking a deal.

In practice, many agreements include both tag-along and drag-along. The parties assume that the majority shareholder does the deal on behalf of all the others.
One could also say that bad unit tests make aggressive refactoring impossible. Both sides of the coin don't necessarily make for a persuasive argument.
While I agree with you to an extent, I'm a huge Rust fan, longtime C/C++ and Java engineer, I disagree that a strongly typed language allows you to not write unit tests.

Unit tests verify logic, the compilers only guarantee syntax. Which yes, handles a huge set of issues that in a dynamic language would require 100% test coverage, you still need to check the logic of the code. Thus, unit tests are still a huge benefit.

One reason I love Rust is the build in #[test] feature. Builtin tests from the ground up, awesome.
To provide the devil's advocate position, why does mere ownership suddenly imply a much higher duty of care? It would be morally abhorrent if we started euthanizing millions of toddlers who we couldn't find homes for yet we're fine doing the same to pets. What, morally, should be the difference between "pets we can find a home for" and "pets we can't find a home for"?
This appears to be connected to François-René Rideau's TUNES project (http://ngnghm.github.io/talks/cc-lc2016.pdf). These slides are probably worthy of a submission themselves.
Actually, unit testing only ensures two things. 1. Tha you've at least looked at and/or considered every piece of code at least twice. Two, it adds friction when writing complex code that isn't modular or a functional composition.

It is not a guarantee of anything beyond that. However, having something close to automated deployment means that you should have very close to 100% coverage if only to ensure the above two things.

One thing I've rallied against at several points, more so in scripted environments is DI/IoC, it's often not needed, and there are often simpler solutions than what is generally used. The benefits are being able to have multiple targets for an interface, and being able to more cleanly unit test some systems in a strongly typed compiled language.

All of that said, I don't always go for thorough testing, but I try to write code in such a way that it's more modular, and would be easier to test, should the need arise.
> Why not?

Because alternatives exist that satisfy your needs.

> You really love iMessage because it is free from spam and abuse, not because it is tied-down.

It is free from spam and abuse because it is tied-down. This isn't a controversial statement; it's one of the famously difficult problems in computer networks. Nobody has solved it.
Why Food Addiction Is Deadlier Than Drinking (2011)
Yeah game boy might be a bad example. MSX? Or custom Commodore 64 cases (though that could be trickier because of the size)
That's one of the dirty little secrets with end to end tests that almost no one talks about. You will probably spend more time running after ghosts in the machine than finding actual bugs.
Choice means choice, not interoperability. Choice means I get to choose a walled garden or an open protocol.
Very intriguing but just like most other articles on alternative management structures, this leaves out all the critical information and focuses on praising system without actually understanding it. While I understand that at CERN most people are working for pure passion at modest salaries while being very highly qualified as opposed to someone in 20s with goal to cash out stock options and retire ASAP, I think it's important to figure out if this is the driving reason behind success of loose management structure with no chain of command.

Any alternative management system proposal needs to answer questions like,

1. How people gets hired? Who creates job posting, how interviews are conducted, who does negotiations, approvals and how talent gets attracted and retained?

2. Is there differentiated performance reviews? If so who exactly conducts, signs off these? Is there curve? Is there expected distribution? Who approves promotions/pay raises? Who sets up these rules?

3. If there minimum expectations for performance? Who determines firing and how?

4. If there is no real manager and everything gets decided by commeeties, who sets up these commeeties? How work assignment is done? Who is accountable for tracking progress, success or failure? Who has final say in ties when conflicts occur?

5. What options employees have when they want change? How transfer happen? Who approves these and what are the official rules?
Perhaps it would have been better to phrase that as 'competing priorities', but you got the point.
You can read a news release from MIT about such an endeavor here:

http://news.mit.edu/2015/bipedal-robot-with-human-reflexes-0...

The limiting factor remains not the human, so much as the hardware and software design bottlenecks.
I'd counter that with dynamic language, easy modularization and the ability to create single function modules that are composable, and written as such, that code is more easily understood and doesn't require the same type of testing as more complex systems in static language, that lend to layers of indirection and complexity for the sake of testability.

I'm not saying that testing isn't needed in either place, but a lot of the times "enterprise" practices that leak into scripted environments make code far more complicated and difficult to understand than it needs to be.
For MySQL I use sequel.

For SQLite I use whatever pops up as my autostart app. I have like 4-5 free ones installed but they are all so basic and feels very bare after using sequel. Recently I have been quite satisfied with one named "Base" and I am thinking of buying it.
To be clear, Secure Enclave is a coprocessor on Apple's A7 and later SoCs, it's not a physically separate chip from the main processor. But you are correct it's different from TrustZone.
You're just bummed because no one challenged you! /s
And a fascinating lecture by Harvard's professor Gary King - How Censorship in China Allows Government Criticism but Silences Collective Expression:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hybtm4Fp1jc
I didn't say not write tests but that it reduces the volume of tests needed for largely the reasons you stated
This Elevated Bus Could Be the Answer to Traffic Jams
I'm not giving up unit tests anytime soon. I've had excellent success using them - success being much faster development time and far fewer bugs found in the field.
Humanity screwed up education the day teaching became a profession (to earn money).
Food is so yesterday!
The bytes object is not a string type. It's treated more like a list of integers. It has very little string operations. Only in 3.5 did they add back the ability to % format.

Not to mention all the b prefixes it just becomes painful.
It gets voted up because there's a grain of truth. Some (usually inexperienced) programmers really do write a lot of mock-heavy, boilerplate tests that don't verify any behavior of importance.

Maybe you haven't seen it. But keep in mind that consultants get called in when something has gone wrong. They tend not to see clean codebases by teams that are working well.
Trustzone runs an RTOS-like kernel, he likely hacked Qualcomm's implementation of this kernel to gain access.

In particular this line in the screenshot hints at what he did: "Overwriting syscall_table_5 pointer"

The issue is likely applicable on particular qualcomm devices, and a software patch should be possible.
Yes, I totally agree with this. I've worked in large orgs, where there were QA engineers that needed work, would come and ask, what tests they could write. My response was always, "well, I think I handled all the positive use cases, so you can add negative test cases", which I've never really seen a huge point in (though that depends on the interface contract).
I've also found unit testing to be a fairly good way of documenting code. A unit test will often times shine light on an angle traditional documentation doesn't always cover.
That's why I said a global yearly total flat tax on total net worth, not income.

If that could be made to work and the pieces set up to work, would it be a solution?
Facebook, Walmart, and Ford Motor Company were built through hard work and perseverance, not through their founders' socioeconomic background. Building a successful business is so difficult, that the founders' socioeconomic background is an infinitely smaller obstacle to overcome. The self-made person is real, but there's so few of them that they are lost in the noise of this study's data.
A file is one of the most under-appreciated tools. I find them incredibly useful.
static type systems != unit tests
Trustzone adds an additional protected mode to the cpu. IMO it complicates the CPU and adds no additional security - it's not like other protected modes in the cpu are less secure, or more hackable.
Have you seen people reading tests much in practice?

I've heard the "executable documentation" line but my general impression is that people usually read the production code. They'll only look at the tests when they fail or they need to modify them.
Freezing (as well as sharp acceleration) can unstick the mechanical parts of the HDD quite often the arm that moves the heads up and down the platter.
In my case i could hear the "ticks" of the arm stepper motor they were gone after a day in the freezer.
And I've seen an iphone that would not work you put it into a freezer for 1-2 hours, take it it turns on, after about 1-2minutes it dies again and you could repeat it.
There are probably so many things that temperature could affect when it comes to electronics that I'm not sure if there is even one thing that a research could easily focus on.
DRM for example, see this older post where a bug in Qualcomm's DRM software enabled full system compromise: http://bits-please.blogspot.com/2016/05/qsee-privilege-escal...
You've kind of contradicted yourself. Regulation, tax rebates and research funding are all versions of picking winners when viewed through the lens of the regulations/rebates/research not chosen.

Unlike VCs, governments have other instruments besides direct investment. And they don't need to make a financial return.
How technology hijacks peoples minds
I agree with you. I'm not trying to say that exoskeletons lack applications, just that the whole 'power-loader' concept is a bit silly. GE wanted the user of the hardiman to be able to pick up a 1.5 ton load and walk around with it. There aren't that many applications that require a 1.5 ton load to be 'walked around.'

And yes, the orthotics market for exoskeletons is very big, and largely ignored, one.
You do not attract high quality staff by offering $0 salary. Nor do you get high quality staff when they cannot be fired(as is so common today).
Both once had RSS feeds, and discontinued them. The RSS feeds didn't have ads.
ELI5: Vector representation of word or “word embeddings”
Could Someone here please explain me the Vector representation of word or “word embeddings” concept in a layman manner.
Or pick your nose:

http://www.schlockmercenary.com/2012-03-14
Likewise, completely unusable on a mobile. The whole page took ages to even render (on wifi) only to instantly start jumping around to fit in ads.
> From a security standpoint, wouldn't it be better to rely on PHP (first)?

You're joking, right? Popping PHP boxes is script kiddie 101. You might argue that "bad developers make insecure software" but when you're given a toolbox with nothing but oddly shaped hammers it's very hard to make a house.
Thanks for the correction, I've read that it was a separate die but you are correct it's in the same package.
The "Mariel" people were not upper class Cubans. Many were petty criminals and mental health patients. So, just so people who might think they were all people who escaped back in '59, no, most were not those people.
If you are truly worried about power, look no further than the government. The power to use force is actual power.
.NET uses DBNull.Value, which is not null.

Also 6th normal form?? What is that?
Frankly saying I'm not 100% sure who copied the code from other. Cmrunton's version is younger than Jens' one (based on the repository history and commits), but Jens admits that code for the dashboard was picked somewhere.

Code is, clearly, very very similar, I've checked both dashboards, this why I've posted the initial comment.
For me, the expression is "A is on the brink of war", not "the brink of war was at T", so I read it as the Americans being on the brink of war, not as 1941 being the brink of war.
Mike Acton's "Data Oriented Design" talk from CppCon is great

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX0ItVEVjHc
At my company, we (developers) tend to develop mainly automated functional tests and we test our product in blackbox mode. I also prefer favouring functional tests and found that actually many integration tests become useless. For unit tests, I keep that for pieces of code that are used thoroughly in different contexts, i.e, actually code that could be turned into an external library and/or code that is hard to test in integration/functional tests => it makes non-regression much faster to test.

For blackbox mode, I am not that convinced that it is the proper strategy, especially when the product is being built incrementally. The typical example is when an entity state is being modified in a UC and the function to test the state is not yet developped. I'd prefer in that case to have the test verify that the state has been properly updated directly in DB.
Operative word 'most', and then only when done by someone who doesn't understand the goal of unit testing. Any tool can be abused, including testing.

I became a 'convert' after having to clean up a fairly large mess. Without first writing a bunch of test code there would have been no way whatsoever to re-factor the original code. That doesn't mean I'm a religious test writer and that there is 150% test code for each and every small program I write. But unit testing when done properly is certainly not wasteful, especially not in dynamic languages and in very low level functions. The sooner you break your code after making changes the quicker you can fix the bug and close the black box again. It's all about mental overhead and trust.

Unit tests are like the guardrails on the highway they allow you to drive faster confident that there is another layer that will catch you in case something goes wrong rather than that you'll end up in the abyss.
The epitome of anecdotal evidence.
> I have a serious question, given that this was written by a consultant, is it possible that tests get in the way of completing a project in a timely manner, thus causing a conflict of interest in terms of testing?

Doubt so, he works for a software testing consultancy. They've been around since 1994 apparently. http://rbcs-us.com/
some information is available here: http://ithare.com/contents-of-development-and-deployment-of-...
Sounds like that poor Luftwaffe general/concerned father "doomed" the Bismarck more directly than someone who happened to transcribe a broken code. I wonder what his obituary was like.
I couldn't agree more. I am doing a lot of nodejs development these days and it's usually a pain to verify that the code works the way it should. Writing a quick bunch of unit tests is very superior to loading your code in an interactive console and manually fiddling with inputs / outputs. These unit tests often break at the first refactoring and we rewrite them at that point. I'm a bit surprised that people argue that unit tests facilitate "aggressive" refactorings. Aggressive refactoring to me means architecture changes and unit tests almost never survive those. Integration testing is what ensures proper functioning in those situations for me.
units are likely to be aggressively refactored, no?
Ballooning Spider
If you're not using fork, dup2, execve instead of popen, you deserve what you get.
>they are proof that the work that you just did is correct

Nope. They may be evidence, but they aren't proof. Proof comes from formal systems like type systems.
Jens' first commit [1] was 3 days ago, the repo is a fork of the node-js-getting-started example repo and all older commits [2] are not by him and related to that repo.

Craine's project was already done and posted here by then [3], the situation is very clear here.

[1] https://github.com/JensDebergh/certificate-dashboard/commit/...

[2] https://github.com/JensDebergh/certificate-dashboard/commits...

[3] https://github.com/cmrunton/tls-dashboard/commits/master
My experience is that more often than not, unit tests get thrown away in aggressive refactorings, and system level tests survive. If you have a system that depends on units A, B and C, and refactor it to use a totally different structure divided into units D, E and F, then the unit tests for A B and C get thrown away, as they don't really have an equivalent in D, E and F. But the system level test stays, as the system as a whole does the same thing. So, the system level test is what guarantees the safety of the refactor.

That is not always the case, but that happens in most of the large refactorings i've been involved in.
I guess my concept of education is completely different then yours. For me education is the idea that we - the current generation - can give knowledge and skills to the next generation so that they are ready to face the challenges of future and the cycle continues and humanity wins. BUT who give a shit to humanity, all we want to teach kids is how to "score good marks and get a good earning job".

The problem of education is not how it is done but the current purpose of "education" is wrong i.e it is "what" that needs to be fixed about education.

By the way "You do not attract high quality staff by offering $0 salary" is exactly whats wrong with education.
I think you need to define "mostly harmless". I will imagine that if a bird gets sprayed those chemicals mid-air, it will either drop to the ground or start flying erratically and collide into something mid-air which can cause death[1].

[1] I've seen a bird hit the side of my stationary car out of nowhere and it died on the spot.
Of course, a far simpler countermeasure would be to fly your drone for malicious purposes at night. As far as I know, there are no birds of prey that hunt other birds at night. Could owls be trained to take prey in the air despite being adapted to hunting rodents? I don't know.
Hah, I'd say that both Dijkstra and Backus are "heros" for me---scare quotes for the exact same reason. I'm mainly interested in ideology/vision in reading about the early pioneers, and I find theirs more interesting than, let's say, Knuth's.
Android widgets library
Microsoft Removes 260-Character Path Length Limit in Windows 10 Redstone
A new android library to create every kind of arc gauges and seek bars.
Funny to see someone besides me post a link to one of my git repos :) What I've done to get around of some of these issues is run an OS X 10.10 VMware image to handle running iMessage-related code. This gets less UI interference since it is fairly AppleScript heavy. Another poster pointed out that disabling some of OS X's security features seems to make this work as well, but I didn't really feel comfortable recommending that anywhere. I just want to easily and programmatically send and receive iMessages!
Static typing does not allow you to refactor code with confidence that you didn't break the application logic. Only automated tests can do that, regardless of type system.
I don't follow this logic. OK, so you removed tests "that haven't failed in years". Then, in a while, you decide to refactor code that those tests were covering == foot, meet shotgun.
You store each letter in the names of the columns of your tables in a different data center.
> use “++it” instead of “it++”

Has anyone actually benchmarked this recently? It's such a trivial optimization for a modern compiler.

I have trouble believing that they'll produce different code when the return value isn't used.
The middle class STARTS at 150K?
For something like this simple plastic non load bearing cap you could just press the broken one in a wad of plasticine then pour molten polystyrene or similar plastic into the mould. A lot cheaper and simpler than 3d printing...
I think what has happened is that people have become averse to and afraid of making set, hard plans to socializing. It's always "let's exchange numbers/Facebook and get a coffee sometime." Or I'll see you around.

We know how connected we are and how easy it is, so we don't set hard plans. Better to defer the potential rejection or obligation.

If it weren't so easy to connect there'd be more pressure to just set a hard time and calendar it right?