skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
But if there are multiple candidate completions, you don't get a list of them, the way you do from <tab> <tab> with no glob - it just completes unconditionally to the first candidate.
Technically you can still share a photo taken outside of Snapchat (on iOS at least).

You just can't add it to your public timeline. It can only be sent to your friends/contacts list. But if you wind up doing select-all on the friends list, it pretty much works out the same way as sharing to the timeline view.
Sorry for the slow response. Just found this comment.

The first and most obvious response is that tsa-pre requires your fingerprints, and tsa does not. That obviously leads to an amount of pre-vetting that is never capable of being done in tsa.

In addition to this, I'd compare tsa to a blacklist and tsa-pre to a whitelist. Perhaps if your estranged ex-wife's crazy uncle goes to the same bar as a known terrorist suspect then tsa would prefer you go through the additional screening (and thus deny you to tsa-pre). However, the connection to the uncle is only made once you apply to tsa-pre (as its a whitelist), and thus more vetting is done.
As a left libertarian I fall firmly in the camp you call "liberal", for the reason that provisioning about universal healthcare is not just about cost, but about liberty.

If one sees protection of life as a moral imperative - because without life there can't be any liberty - then allowing someone to purchase priority over those who need healthcare most is already morally dicey; allowing them to do so without ensuring there is a well funded alternative a big problem (and no, doctors etc. are not an infinite supply that just grows to handle an increased demand).

To me, the right libertarian property centric view does not maximise liberty because it guarantees a resource distribution that deprives a lot of people of essential means. BI could help somewhat with that, but it would likely always be a bandaid - the bare minimum that keeps people quiet.
"-Share data liberally by reference all over your code.
-Try not to make functions side-effecting"
Aren't those 2 points contradictory?
The MAC (not HMAC) used [0] is Poly1305 [1].

[0]: https://github.com/wg/arc/blob/cdd799359b6f7050fc5e3aa128bf1...

[1]: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-agl-tls-chacha20poly1305-0...
The private sector will be more than eager to supply assistance in converting BI to a reliable stream of minimal food+shelter for those who can't trust themselves to do it on their own.

Protecting troubled individuals from all too nasty excesses of a debtor's prison renaissance emerging from the combined forces of payday loan and prison industries will be quite a challenge. Best solved maybe by forming lesser evil versions of the same.
The original idea behind OOP as articulated by Dr. Kay was that since general-purpose computers (Turing Machines) are powerful enough to simulate/approximate any process, then computers should be the smallest building block of a system (especially one that wants to scale -- recursion is awesome).

In general, objects are supposed to be processes (in the general sense, not necessarily OS processes). Some of those processes might be equivalent to full Turing Machines, but most will be much more limited; it just depends on what kind of formal grammar they recognize, which is key to understanding objects: They are just processes that accept some input and dispose of it as either code (something that is translated and executed) or data (something that is stored and forwarded). Crucially, in either case, objects do work by sending and responding to messages. This is why Dr. Kay says that the actual big idea of OOP is message passing[1].

Once I learned to appreciate real OOP, I realized that there is actually a natural simpatico between FP and OOP rather than a dichotomy. Consider that if you're doing real OOP, you're going to end up designing lots of little languages and then implementing interpreters/compilers for them. Well, it turns out that it's comically easy to build compilers and interpreters using statically-typed languages like ML (F# in my case).

Now days, I use F#, C# (immutably w/o setters), and SQL to simulate an environment that recapitulates what I think is the real power of Smalltalk/OOP: It can rather directly simulate the process of scientific progress itself. I now find myself designing classes that represent falsifiable statements [2] (e.g rather than a class 'SearchEngine', I'd have something like 'LowLatencySearchEngine'). Just as scientific progress is often concomitant with theories and models that have ever more symmetry, so it is the case with the graph of classes that describe my system: I somehow end up with fewer central points of failure. For instance, in the case of 'SearchEngine' vs 'LowLatencySearch' engine, the latter made it apparent that my class should be initialized with a set of search providers, and that it should keep latency statistics (thus being able to falsify the proposition). The end result is that the proposition represented by the class naturally contraindicates that I should rely on any one search engine.

There's a lot more to say about this, but the last thing I'll mention is that FP languages like ML teach you that there is a difference between a class and a (static) type. The big idea is that types correspond to logical propositions (the so-called Curry-Howard Isomorphism), but I naturally ended up there just by trying to more effectively simulate the process of science, which brings us full circle to Alan Kay's big idea: computers can simulate any process, they can even simulate better computers. I would argue the scientific process is the best computer of all.

[1] http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AlanKayOnMessaging

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
Ok, so I guess by your omission, you agree that pseudocode is not code and flow charts are also not pseudocode. I don't care about the rest, you can whiteboard all you want. We analyze the problem, then solve it in our heads, usually by the time we've finished talking about it. White boarding just seems way over the top, especially if it takes more than one person to solve a problem every day. Sounds like development by committee.

What's 2+2? Lets go to the whiteboard!

Out of curiosity, what industry are you in and stack do you use?
>Plus sometimes sudden unexpected costs happen, and you cannot wait another week to slowly save up for it, you need that money now.

How do we help people when this happens NOW?
Why should all events have non-zero probability? So that you don't divide by zero when applying Bayes theorem? Why would you condition on a zero probability event to start with? I find all the arguments between bayesianism/frequentist quite boring. If you want to use a prior go ahead, if not, good for you. Whatever.

PD: I actually love SMBC
Good point. Looks like npm 3.x emerged from beta late last year.

I edited my original post accordingly, changing it to a more reminiscent tone.
The names looks alot like HyperDex (http://hyperdex.org/).
I found it weird that the HyperDex DB was pivoting to full stacked Web Apps.
I did really well in school, and am a professional developer now, and my wife utterly destroys me at this game.

She can find sets in real time as the cards are being dealt, while singing along with music, it's maddening.
Solving this debt is not that tricky, it has known legal solutions - e.g. when you have a court order to collect debts from you, where your wages are garnished, it has a floor limit of monthly income that's untouchable and that monthly amount will be available on your bank account no matter what, and there are no legal ways to recover that from you. Threatening to break your legs may work, but that can be handled by the police.

Set this floor equal to BI, and that's it. On the other hand, it will mean that payday lenders will likely not lend to you at all if you have no other income, since you can easily never ever pay them back with impunity; but that might be considered a good thing - people won't get stuck with predatory loans en masse because they won't be given them.
coming from a similar background, I think the biggest difference between "robotics"/mechatronics and CS/EE is physical intuition and hands-on skills.

Making small robots isn't very expensive, I'd just go to a hackspace and start building something.
You just described the simple reason why BI fundamentally cannot work on a large scale. Since we will not be able to leave people on the side of the road if they spend their BI poorly, we will still have to have various programs to help them out. Hence, we might as well try to make those programs as efficient as possible if we are going to have them anyway and not worry about basic income.
> Imagine programmable ones. The only danger is malevolent ones

Ahh yes, we would just make perfect versions of our own cells. What could go wrong?
Here are some citations.

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-14-58.pdf

https://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Guidance-for-Examiners-and-Ma...

Just look up "sham transaction" for plenty more. It's a very well established concept and doctrine. Nobody should be splitting hairs about avoiding vs. evading taxes, or generally pontificating about fiduciary duty, without understanding it.
One thing I didn't see mentioned in the post was an attempt to understand macro economic forces are affected by BI. I understand there are limitations to what can be studied in a controlled environment, and teasing out cause and effect of macro forces can be very, very difficult, but any sort of R&D done at a company normally focuses on reducing the largest risks first, to determine if the project should move forward. Looking at how individual well being and happiness are affected by a basic income seems like an (almost) no brainer as to what the outcome will be - generally positive for those individuals. Maybe this is something that is also being looked at by the team, and just didn't get mentioned in a brief blog post, but I would hope this research is at least thinking about how to address and manage these largest risks first, instead of the opposite.
I don't think you are doing this intentionally but your question is a bit of a straw man. I've never heard anyone flat out propose BI replace basic social services and safety nets. Those programs IMO would continue to exist and function but with a different set of external realities (since BI would change everything).

It is hard to imagine that welfare itself would continue as there would simply be no one who qualifies but possibly it would for extreme situations. If you assume universal, single payer, healthcare then you are talking about education programs, drug addiction, etc programs continuing to exist as they do now.

Anyway, what happens if you take your entire welfare check and blow it now? You turn to your family or you go on the streets. So not much would really change on that front and this isn't really relevant to BI or a flaw in it.
It's not only squashing interop. with iMessage.

It's also a way to squash spam and whatnot from iMessage.
> The paper soon set off a cascade of what Ellenberg called “math at Internet speed.” Within 10 days, Ellenberg and Dion Gijswijt, a mathematician at Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands, had each independently posted papers showing how to modify the argument to polish off the original cap set problem in just three pages.

This is a very interesting trend I've noticed. I wanted to cite a few papers on arXiv in one of my own research papers recently, but my advisor commented that none of the articles had been peer reviewed (since arXiv is a preprint server). I told him that in the last year alone, six papers on arXiv follow a "research trail" (i.e. a paper is put on arXiv in May that builds on results from a February paper that builds on results from December, etc.), and that the most recent peer-reviewed article in a published journal is so far behind the state-of-the-art that completing my paper without any mention to the arXiv works would put me significantly behind the rest of the field.

Of course, these papers all relate to math and computer science — whether a new algorithm or proof works is (usually) immediately evident upon implementation, and the papers on arXiv include the complete algorithm and often link to the author's code. Peer-reviewing their work yourself often takes no longer than a half hour or so (unlike, say, a research article in materials science, where a complete replication study could take over a year).
I suggest people to take the pharo mooc on FUN. I have to admit, smalltalk has a very different flavour of OO. It's very tiny, and helps thinking in tiny reusable pieces of logic from objects to objects, not very far from function composition.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11690331
Well if one is looking for proofs, I think this is hard while remaining abstract from specific languages.

I could counter that support for parametric polymorphism is poor in OO langs as much as you claim support for ad-hoc polymorphism is poor in FP langs. (but I don't place much stock in any of the aforementioned claims outside of some kind of artifical, academic context)

Real-world problems that aren't an academic edge-cases will be supported by both FP and OO.

Multimethods give you ad-hoc polymorphism in an uptyped setting.
You're right, they blow their money on not-so-fine dining (my poor friends think McDonalds is cheaper than "Real Food").

Saying that it's true of most Americans obscures the systemic problem of scratch-offs and 40s on the weekend. And there is clearly a difference when you're doing these things with disposable income and doing it when you do not have disposable income -- one indicates a problem, and I don't think that it's an economic one.
no, the shared data is not modified
there are many forms of intelligence!
See also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11808743.
Insurance companies are just a leech on the economy who collect rent. This would turn healthcare into an even more negative sum game.
This issue is less about Facebook, Twitter, etc. choosing to a code of conduct than it is about having limitations on speech imposed on them by the EC. For this reason, it's about freedom of expression and not about self driven no-platforming.
In Win32, a funny trick I found to get around the path limit was to use subst [1]. You could subst a long path to a drive letter and continue adding directories from there. No one directory could exceed the limit, but it made accessing the path nearly impossible, without setting up the subst first. None of the virus scanners I tried were able to access that deep or flag the bad things I tried putting there.

[1] https://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/windows/xp...
Discussion also in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11808456.
Ask HN: Why should anyone use Apple's Carekit?
We are developing an EHR and we are creating a little App just to remind those Doctor's patients the medication/treatment in an easy way. We are looking to the Apple's Carekit framework to see if there is any advantage in using it, and we do not see any clear benefit for us (Apart from prebuilt modules). Are we missing something ?
It's amazing. Just about every single one of my email addresses have been compromised in one way or another, how could it be there are so many websites with such bad security.
Fine, but if BI is not funded through taxes, then how is it funded?
Microsoft collaborates on blockchain-based ID system
gave up FB in 2007. It's the most frightening application, to the point that, 100 years from now, it'll be studied the way that IG Farben and other relics of the German war machine are studied now.

But don't think you'll ever get others to leave. I've been trying since I left, and only succeded in convincing one person.
To answer that, I need to basically explain the difference between lock-free and locking data structures.

If we consider a locking data structure, say a binary tree using a mutex to serialise access, we see a couple of things;

1. when a thread holds the mutex, no other thread can get any work done

2. if a thread holding the mutex is idled by the operating system, every other thread cannot get any work done on the tree until that thread is finally swapped back in

3. if a thread is holding the mutex when an interrupt occurs, the interrupt handler cannot use the tree, because the tree may be in an invalid state - the mutex holding thread could be right in the middle of adjusting a bunch of pointers

The fact that thread can be prevented from working by other threads is what is meant by saying it is a locking dats structure.

Lock-free data structures are implemented such that, broadly speaking (there are nuances in this which are not necessary here), all threads can continue with their work, regardless of how many other threads are using the data structure or whether or not they've been idled by the operating system.

In short, a lock-free data structure is written in such a way that all possible operations, and any number of them in any order can happen at ANY time, i.e. between the execution of one instruction and the next, and the data structure remains valid at all time.

It is this which makes the data structure process, thread and interrupt safe.

Typically, lock-free data strutures achieve this though the use atomic operations and careful design. (Superior designs also distribute memory accesses away from just one or a few pointers, an improvement which is necessary but insufficient for scalability).
Swift, OCaml, F#, Common LISP?
Pretty cool, the idea looks similar to `now` by Zeit[1]

Platform as a service has gone from click to get a server that needs configuring (AWS), to get a server already configured (Heroku), and now to write code and get URL without even needing to think about servers

[1]: https://zeit.co/
Maybe these are phishing emails? Just change your password and maybe enable two factor authentication just to be safe.
> This would turn healthcare into an even more negative sum game.

How, specifically, would it do so compared to the actual system that exists now in the US?
I hate to be the ostensible libertarian, but unless EVERYONE gets BI, the system will only perpetuate the poor staying poor just like so many other government programs that disincentive moving up in income due to the loss of benefits
OO favors indirection to make code supposedly "maintainable." FP likes completeness in one place so code is more readable.
When Sublime Text 3 comes out of beta, they can have my money, please.

I've tried Atom and Brackets but 'Nope!'
As a developer in 2016, you need to learn emacs (or vim)
Genuine question.

Why do you feel we should keep useless people alive?
That's a fair point, but I do not believe password managers are currently the norm for a userbase like tumblrs.

Still, the hash time for a SHA1 is fairly insignificant at this point.
So are the "threats and intimidation that sometimes get physical" purely due to ice cream sales, or are there illicit goods also being sold from the vans (as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow_Ice_Cream_Wars )?
I know someone who blows his "bijstand" (the lowest welfare level in the Netherlands, about 1000 euro but you will also receive subsidies for rent (up to 350 euro) and healthcare). I can tell you that you will become homeless and live in homeless shelters when your parents can't or will not take you in.
The economy is circular. The money created through the loan benefits the entire economy, going from hand to hand. you don't consume money or burn them. Then its unfair to burden one group or say one country (like Greece) to have to pay through the nose for the activity that everybody benefits from. This is basic macro-economics. The root cause of debt slavery and financial troubles we have can be solved by separating the creation of money from lending. In a democracy the power to create money should lie with the people not private banks. If the politicians misbehave you can vote then out of office unlike the CEO of Goldman Sachs at al
It is one thing to create a dependency, it is quite another to terminate the relationship. I hope YC has a really good plan on how they will wind this down if they decide not to go through with it.

Chinese proverb: save a mans life and you are responsible for him. This might very well end up with some horrific withdrawal effects if and when the project is terminated.
Immutable data is very easily shared.
It wouldn't be a puzzle if the range was symmetrical so it is safe to assume it isn't.
"Oh, and it’s free."
Yes, in part -- though I'd say the better analogy there is home mortgages; in both cases, easy access to low-cost loans leads to risky debt. (Plus, college tuitions have gone up in part because government subsidies have gone down and in part because they have allowed their costs to go up, not necessarily because they have simply jacked up the prices.)
I'm interested in basic income, though I don't know much about economics or politics.

I personally wouldn't expect basic income to replace all of those other systems. I don't like the quote here:

> We think everyone should have enough money to meet their basic needs

I think it should be just "Everyone should have their basic needs met". The money is a means to that end, but only a means, and not the best one for all needs. For example, I don't think people should have to use basic income for medical needs. Healthcare should just be provided.

That's good because our healthcare needs do not fit a nice flat monthly allotment. Most months, most people don't need to spend much on healthcare. Then there are some months where, holy shit, you need to spend tons. Some people have chronic illness and will over their lifetime spend way more money on healthcare. At the same time, most people don't have enough expertise to really shop around and choose how to best spend their healthcare dollar.

In contrast, I think basic income is a good fit for the needs where some personal discretion makes sense. That's probably housing, food, and personal essentials. I think of it as sort of like food stamps, except everyone gets them, even the wealthy, so hopefully they have less stigma. And you can use them to pay rent.

Even then, there needs to be safety nets below those. Some people—probably a small fraction—have either enough mental health problems, temporary misfortune, etc. where they may not reliably use their basic income to secure their needs. Those people certainly bear some responsibility for misallocating their basic income, but I don't believe the punishment for failing to do that should be a slow death by starvation or exposure. I certainly don't think the children of those people should be punished in that way.

I don't look at basic income as "more efficient welfare", though it may have some positive effects there. I care more that it creates a more efficient society by giving people more security and freedom. If you aren't living paycheck to paycheck, you can try to find a better place to live, or find a job that's better suited to your skills. If you aren't terrified of ending up on the streets, you have a little more brainpower to devote to learning and improving.

No one is their best self when they are barely scraping by. I think something like basic income can help us all make the most of our potential. It's not a panacea, but I think it can help.

It may also be the case that with basic income that more people have the time to volunteer and provide some of the welfare and social services the government currently funds. That may not pan out at all, but it's a nice idea and a possible emergent property.
Just want to point out that making routine/preventative care an out-of-pocket cost is probably one of the worst things you can do. I expect there's a reason many companies emphasize and encourage their employees take advantage of 100% free preventive care under their insurance plans. You can save a ton of money later by catching and treating issues early, and even a small personal cost can encourage people to ignore warning signs and not seek aid until the problem has become severe and expensive.