skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> If you're not going to support these claims, you shouldn't make them.

Why is that? I am personally willing to believe "Multiple generally-trustworthy members of a community make accusations about a person P which, by their nature, cannot be easily substantiated to the public, which if true would imply that P is/has done X" as very strong evidence for "P is/has done X" - certainly enough to override my prior for "Most people are not/have not done X". And therefore, I think that people should make claims they believe to be true even when they are unsubstantiable by nature, and I am glad that these claims were made.

I'm not trying to make you feel bad for calling this out; you're just saying something that I see a lot in technical communities, in a lot of contexts. I would like technical communities to have a good, strong, evidence-backed way of reasoning about things like this. It seems so often that we default to reasoning about things the way the Anglo-Saxon legal system wants to reason about things when considering whether to point its monopoly on violence at a person. Especially for matters like harassment and sexual assault, we have strong reason to doubt that the legal system is well-suited in its current form at accurately making that judgment, let alone whether it is correct at judging truth, which it explicitly makes no claim to (Blackstone's dictum is specifically about how the legal system should minimize harm on the occasions it gets truth wrong). That default is baked into us by culture, but I think it's a bad default, or more specifically, an irrational and often erroneous default. Hearsay isn't allowable in a court of law, but that's not a reason that hearsay shouldn't be allowed to influence the personal opinions of community members who are making judgments for themselves and not for a government.
The OP absolutely wants those he disagrees with to be silenced.

"The people who brake the law with their hateful comments inciting violence deserve to face the consequences of the law. "

AKA, if people make arguments that he disagrees with, like "immigrants are more likely to break the law", he believes those people who make those arguments should be put in jail.
I dropped out of college
Hi! I recently launched a blog focused on lifestyle, entrepreneurship and personal finance.

At Valdour.com you will find the best place for lifestyle improvement, life-changing personal development strategies, entrepreneurship guides the best practices to personal finance and stock trading.

Send me feedback at jay@valdour.com

Thank you!!
That's a little harsh. It was an MVVM framework along the same lines as backbone, ember 1.0, knockout, and pretty much every other framework of the day, plus a lot of extra functionality. It's not really google's fault that MVVM has limitations.
Hey guy, what you found is DNS polution, which is applied for years and upgraded several times. The most recent upgrade increases polluted result from tens to thousands and introduced real ip pointing to real web sites.
If you carefully read what I said, I think you'll find there's less disagreement between what you posted and what I said than your tone suggests you think. I did, for instance, mention C methods, but you seem to imply that that matters to all Python implementations. It only matters to CPython. Barring what last I knew was some fairly experimental stuff from PyPy, Python extensions are not generally compatible between the implementations. (Where you see libraries that appear to work on multiple implementations, AIUI you're actually seeing multiple implementations of the binding code.)

Personally my feeling is that if you care enough about performance to be threading in Python, you care enough about performance to not be using Python anyhow. It's a nice language, it's by far my favorite of the scripting languages of its family, but even with all the PyPy JIT and other magic tech words you can throw at it, it's still a slow language. When that doesn't matter, great; when it does, you eventually reach the point where you're stuck. (I've never been overwhelmed by the "implement it in C then" argument, for many reasons, and nowadays to an increasing degree if you're going to implement your "core" in another language for speed, there's a language you can choose that is both nice to use and already fast for your task, and that's only going to get more true as time goes on.)
That would work if deciding which things are and are not rights was not itself a preference. You can say that you have some axiom which informs your decisions, but you may have some difficulty proving that this axiom is superior to all others, or all others known (and in which logical framework?).

In practice, this usually ends up selecting for the preference to simply not care about any of the above.
Yes, but what about mutating objects/primitives in a way that causes all validations to pass but still be passing the wrong data?

It seems like using type checking as a reason to write fewer tests actually just creates nastier bugs in areas where your coverage is based on type validation.

What am I missing about checking type mutation !== mutation being a problem?

What is the advantage of strong types if your data structures are immutable? Is there any? I'm genuinely trying to understand if TS is just for cases where uncontrolled mutation is the norm and test coverage is poor.
There is a version of Python that JITs -- I forget it's name at the moment, though.
So we should completely abolish taxes, then? I assume this is one of those plans where we privatize all government services and the free market makes everything perfectly efficient and utopic, except for the people who can't afford to pay their police bill?
ThinScript Compiler Demo
I think if H1-B, and skilled visas in general, was truly about skill level and best fit, fine. However, every situation (like Disney) where visas are used to bring in labor to be trained to replace technical workers who may not necessarily be the HN crowd, but are a vital part of business, should be disallowed. If a company wants to offshore, fine, but it shouldn't use the Visa system to have workers being replaced training their replacements.
Checked exceptions don't play well with high-order functions, and basically anything else where one piece of code is calling into another piece such that it doesn't know what it is at compile-time (dynamically loaded extensions, DI, UI event handlers, and even plain old virtual methods in many cases).

Basically, at those boundaries, you either have to say that the called code can throw anything - but then what about your own contract? you will either have to swallow everything; or rethrow everything, making it a part of your contract; or wrap everything in an exception type that you declare vas part of your contract, which is really a disguised version of rethrowing that doesn't add any meaningful value. Or else you say that the callee cannot throw anything, and then it is forced to swallow exceptions at the boundary.

Here's a very simple example of how it affects design: try implementing Java's List<T>, or even Iterable<T>, on top of a file. Something really simple, like one string element per line.

You'll find that it all works, except for error handling - because every read can fail, and neither List.get() nor Iterator.next() let you throw an appropriate exception type.

In contrast, in .NET, File.ReadLines will happily return an IEnumerable<string>, which will throw IOException when a given line couldn't be read - because IEnumerator is not limited with respect to what exceptions it cannot throw.

To properly deal with this problem, you need value-dependent types. Then you can do things like write, say, a generic implementation of map() that takes any random sequence, and throws the same exceptions that said sequence can throw when it's iterated.
The article is paywalled, but if they are launching from a US Government owned launch facility, they would need permission to use it. They would also need US airspace approval as well. There are probably quite a few other regulations they would need to adhere to as well.

I would imagine it would be the same for any other country that has launch facilities as well.
Wouldn't it look odd to be loitering in a hotel hallway?
It has actually a lot to do with it. For two main reasons:

1. All tax complications, special exceptions, special deductions, etc. usually meant to benefit some behaviors and/or punish some other behaviors. One can't wonder then that some people use these regulations to reduce their tax load - that's exactly how they are supposed to work! If you put into the law, say, deduction for making a movie, because you want more movies to be made, and then somebody makes a movie with the purpose of lowering the taxes, you got exactly what you wanted. It may be a crappy movie because its sole purpose was to avoid taxes, but that's still how it supposed to work. More you have special regulations, more you have ways to play them to reduce your taxes.

2. Tax scheming is not free. It takes a lot of inconveniences, highly paid specialists and paperwork to achieve. If the cost of compliance is high, it makes sense to scheme, but if compliance is very cheap but scheming is expensive, not a lot of people would bother with scheming. Some, of course, still will, but there is still a reverse proportion between cost of compliance and incentive to scheme.

> The problem is not simple but the root is; while the wealthy can influence the process of how much they pay in taxes, the system will continue to be in their favor.

How is it in their favor exactly? Top quintile has about half of total income in US and pays about 2/3 of overall taxes. That's some unusual definition of favorable treatment.
Aloha, I'm not on Oahu, but Maui. Pretty abysmal here as far as tech work. Been here since February, and now playing with the idea of looking for "real" work.

Still hacking on pet projects.
Here is a working link to the position: https://jobs.apple.com/us/search#location&ss=48219674&t=1&so...
"If you think there is really some conspiracy to hide the statistics of rapes by immigrants, then do the research and prove it."

And how would I go about doing that? Apparently if I make this argument, then people like you will try and send me to jail (or fine me or whatever).
I find it interesting that the general sentiment on HN seems to be that individuals should have freedom from government intrusion into their communications - but that doesn't seem to translate into the same feelings regarding their financial transactions.
It's definitely harder to make friends when you're older outside of work acquaintances (at least I've found it true, YMMV). I'm an introvert, friendly but in no wise would I be called outgoing, and I'm not much of a joiner. These traits are not conducive to making lots of friends. Finding friends is important, but so is connecting with peers. What I really find depressing is the lack of intellectually stimulating conversation at work.

While I'm now in a local job, the department I'm attached to is in a satellite building far enough off campus to make it impossible to just meet up with my peers. My co-workers are nice, but they're not really colleagues or peers in terms of my professional development. I'm a technical person in a functional/business analyst role where I support a group of non-technical users. I almost never have the opportunity to discuss implementation details with the developers and I rarely meet with other analysts face-to-face. Online interactions will have to scratch that itch, for now at least. Though I do fear with the spread of the 'gig' economy, the ease of outsourcing, and increasing availability of remote work, this loneliness is only going to be a growing problem.
Bad title, it's just about how Apple can't get a store in India, was expecting a story of setting up business in India.
I'm a big proponent of causality without directionality.
> While I understood the idea, that you would pit your own resources against each other like that was kind of foreign to me. My own personal learning from that, having watched them for 15 years, four of which from the inside, is that as a way of managing a company it produces few viable products and no viable businesses.

Interesting you say this as the first example that I can think of is Apple themselves when Steve Jobs was forced out of the Apple Lisa team and he joined the Macintosh team which then became in direct competition with the Apple Lisa team. I don't need to expunge on that but i found it to be a very famous case study on how 2 internal teams in direct competition affected the company.
The Zaventem-Maelbeek bombings in Belgium are the new normal
I get the same results as well. According to Google(1), it's due to the low search volume of the term "crooked hillary". Obviously, not sure how their algorithm works, but this seems a bit suspicious due to the search volume seen on Google Trends (vs the much less searched "crooked hillary bernie" term that does show up): https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=crooked%20hillary%2C...

(1): http://searchengineland.com/google-crooked-hillary-251152
China’s Factory to the World Is in a Race to Survive
S/he does have a choice - move to somewhere without taxes (Vanuatu was mentioned earlier as a possibility).

The fact that non-taxing countries aren't over-run with libertarian immigrants (despite being a tropical paradise!) makes me doubt the practicality of the concept.
Foremost the number of times a gene is found does not directly relate to its expression, and mutant proteins are often significantly more reactive than their counterparts. Also having more genes means the risk of getting a damaged gene goes up.

Most importantly people for the last 20 years have tried to genetically integrate working p53 into cancer cells, and it has little effect on most types of cancer.
Because they can't be defended against, and especially can't be defended or questioned without being insensitive to the complaints which are supported.

It's a share of what Jake is accused of: making it impossible to criticize or question.

From a perspective of statistics, these allegations are heresay-- and we've heard them elsewhere. The results in well known cognitive biases where evidence gets double counted when someone elses allegation is simply repeated by someone else.
Let's just pretend for the moment that what you wrote isn't totally fabricated, and let me ask you this: how is that relevant? Does US misbehaviour make Russian misbehaviour suddenly acceptable? Are we now to be impressed if our leaders manage to be no worse than their peers?
>>This is because the program as-is does not restrict people from changing jobs. It just requires a sponsorship.

It doesn't technically restrict them, but the window for changing jobs is so short that the employees are practically anchored to the employer.

In addition to the short window, changing jobs during H1B also resets the immigrant's place in the green card queue, which can cost them years and years of progress they have made towards permanent residency and citizenship.

You claim that if H1B workers could stay in the country without jobs, it would put downward pressure on wages. I disagree. The current system already places downward pressure: since H1B workers are anchored to their sponsor employer, they have close to zero leverage in salary negotiations. If they could change jobs freely and at their own leisure (during the course of their visa) then they could shop around and go to the highest paying employer.
> The very fact that people from around the world can meet so easily virtually today is in itself a value regardless of whether it's better to meet in person.

So the standard reply to this is because we are fine tuning our meetups we are missing out on serendipity.

Travelers stay in touch with home so much they don't need to meet people.

We are connected on the bus and at a restaurant such that we are not pushed to meet people.

Then when we go to the fine matched event there is too much pressure to make friends.

I would say I'm the same, I'd need harder evidence that we are not getting lonelier.

Without a doubt we are changing, so it is troubling we don't know for sure if it's better or worse, I doubt such a big change is neutral.
Extensive discussion of this topic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11840455
You're not wrong, but most people (even the tech minded) choose their new car by something other the center console features—there are many more important criteria to consider. In the 90s many people ended up with cassette players in their car when they would have preferred CD players.

On my car I had to open up the radio and modify it by hand to accept aux input. Still, I wouldn't have chosen a different car. The other parts of of it are far more important, even if it does irk me that the center console isn't DIN compatible.
Ah, the Win16Mutex. My personal favorite however (especially when discussing the OS/2 2.0 fiasco) is how the continued dependence on DOS allowed Caldera lawsuits to continue.
He didn't make his own hardware though? It's a software based CPU. Actually manufacturing a CPU at home would require you to crash at a foundry. Or y'know build a really, really slow one out of parts that you could actually use in your home.

I think this is really cool but all he did was use a cool product for exactly what it is intended for.

The video seems to be deliberately non-obvious that this is all software based. If you're gonna post it for public consumption you should be more up front, I think, or some people are probably going to assume you actually did manufacture your own CPU From the title.
A lot of this data can also be browsed by mere mortals at http://openbeta-contracts-explorer.usaspending.gov/ . More information is available at https://openbeta.usaspending.gov/ too.
Well, Altair BASIC was their first product.
Law used to define some people as property. It's extremely reductive to equate the concept of property with what the law happens to say.
The F-scale personality test: a WWII attempt to measure authoritarianism
Interestingly enough, to get information about this controversy, I unconsciously queried Google Search in my Google Chrome browser. I then learned more about it through Google News. Given the power they have over information, they have a serious responsibility to ensure neutrality. I hope this is just a normal technical issue and not fowl play, although based on the evidence, I am definitely suspicious.
Agreed. Considering I've been there a few tiems myself. An example I can give confirming this is that I've had a freinds uncle who had the money to afford a flat in Mumbai but the owner of the flat property didnt want to give permission. Anwyays it took a lot of "negotations" for that to go through.
In principle yes. It requires some extra support though -- regulation alone won't lead to a healthy situation:

1. We need to pay & respect regulators well enough that people will want to pursue it as a career, because once you start down it you won't be allowed to work in industry.

2. Expertise can be difficult to develop, but it's absolutely necessary for complex industries. Who is best-equipped to regulate, say, fossil fuel exploration? An experienced expert from that industry, since they know the ins and outs intimately. But they are also likely to have conflicts of interest. See Deepwater Horizon for an example of how badly it can go wrong when expert regulators turn a blind eye.

Occasionally it will go very well, like with Tom Wheeler of the FCC. He is an expert veteran of the telecom industry, and he seems to have public good in mind, and he values the regulatory role well enough to put some real effort into it and take professional risks. But his case is exceptional -- it's rare to find someone like that, from what I've seen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
It is because we have been selected for a much longer lifespan than mice. Basically during human evolution there has been a selection process for greater resistance to developing cancer - if we got cancer at the rate mice get it almost nobody would make it to be a teenager.

Humans are by animal standards very long lived and naturally quite resistant to developing cancer. We have many more anti-cancer biochemical and genetic systems (antioncogenes) that work much better than the same systems in mice.
What on earth are you talking about? Did you reply to the wrong comment?
> If your PC is faster than a certain speed Win95 won't boot.

That's interesting. What's the threshold there?
I think that was one of the suggestions from the after-talk conversation. The trouble is that you have to do it on thread creation, which is sort of a cheesy way to ensure single-threaded performance doesn't go down: it still leaves multi-threaded applications performing worse than under the GIL, which isn't super helpful. Ideally you'd do it on the first access to the object by a second thread, but there's no particular interface that makes it clear that's what's happening: the second thread just knows about the object somehow, and reads it at some point. And there are enough global variables in Python (e.g., every module) that simply promoting it when it's visible to multiple threads is too aggressive.
> How is it in their favor exactly? Top quintile has about half of total income in US and pays about 2/3 of overall taxes. That's some unusual definition of favorable treatment.

Not really. Some, perhaps you, will say 1/2 of overall taxes is more fair, while others will say 3/4 is more fair. It all depends on a combination of one's value system (what's fair) and one's interpretation of how the economic system does or doesn't work.

[EDIT: It's funny getting down-votes for saying something logically valid and consistent. I didn't even take a side.]
Why never giving up is a worthwhile goal
I'm not so sure about the "faster to write" since my IDE and linting will already take care of that. The java-style boilerplate is a huge turnoff for me, and the validation seems to produce false negatives so often as to actually introduce more bugs. Ie, If a variable gets mutated without changing type, TS is now worse than useless for validation.

The self-documenting part is the strongest argument I've heard, but writing real documentation and real tests still seems better.
Those of us with on-the-ground experience in India and without a vested interest in trying to whitewash the business and governmental environment there know it to be true.
Unfortunately these OS level privacy countermeasures are trivial to circumvent.

Instead of checking for [photo permission denied] or [camera permission denied], on supported OS versions the app can check for [empty image list] or [black camera image]. Then display the impenetrable wall, or disable the goodie, or lock out the content because it can't verify that there are N or fewer viewers, or...
> But a more telling reason for the rise is that humans, on average, live a lot longer than they used to. "If you live long enough you will get cancer," says Biankin.

I keep hearing this, but do we have data that shows that cancer rates have not changed within age groups?

Average lifespan is skewed by much higher infant mortality rates of the past: an average lifespan of 45 doesn't mean everybody was dropping dead at 45; it means more people were dying during their infancy and youth.