skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Hello wolfgke

> These are mostly not scientific, but engineering breakthroughs (a lot of the science necessary for it was developed long before).

That's reasonable. But the public sees the whole stack re: technology/engineering/science as the same thing. If something stalls in one part, it affects the other two.

Come to think of it: any undiagnosed failure in the education system could easily lead to a broad stagnation, so it is certainly hard to tease these things apart and allocate blame.

> Which shows that science works/worked pretty well, just the society/economy to back it was too weak. For me a really strong pro-science argument.

Supposing that you are right. Why then does society/economy remain too weak to fully back the science? What is the grit in the gears?

> Bullshit: Try to use a computer or cell phone that was built 30 or 40 years ago.

I think we are, certainly I am, excluding progress in computer science. That's the one general area of brightness.

Whether that's enough to counteract weakness in cheap energy production/storage, biotechnology and medicine, spaceflight (until very recently), effective transport etc, is another thing.
Why couldn't they just bump up -XX:MaxInlineSize=35 ?
In some interpretations of quantum mechanics, it actually has:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann%E2%80%93Wigner_int...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-minds_interpretation

More precisely, these interpretations require consciousness, but we can take that consciousness requires life.
I was thinking that it didn't come to my mind to sit down and download as much content as I could from courses because it was freely available.

What I realized is that even on the internet nothing lasts forever, and that I should always download stuff I like, just in case...
Views on the exodus women in the tech sector
Those lone software new code are bound to sage, not separable Python modules?
ASK HN: Are you looking for read notifications of your documents?
This is why when Big Bang Theory debuted, I thought Sheldon Cooper was specifically supposed to be a parody of Stephen Wolfram.

In math, how you came by the results you came by is always relevant. Don't tell mathematicians they don't need to know that. It's their job to know that.
I guess what I'm saying is...
is calculating it easier than going:

x = Time ( now )
...
total_elapsed_time = Time ( now ) - x
print strftime ( total_elapsed_time )

I've actually used your hex example once before!
I believe they're talking about a test harness they built, to synchronize collection of cache traces with the execution of the handshake. FLUSH+RELOAD requires a co-resident attacker (they need to be on the same hardware, though not necessarily the same VM).
It does reroute it.

If you use Messenger to call another Messenger user, it will attempt to make the call as a VOIP call using your data. If you don't have Messenger, it routes it as a normal phone call via your telco 'voice' 3G/4G network. Similar to how iMessage works with SMS on iphones (except with iMessage, I can turn it off on my end)
I'm not a Clojure user, but this article reads to me like complaints about the language's faults, and frustration it isn't solved a particular way. He may be right in some or all of these cases, but some of the phrasing used does not encourage anyone to look at it further. Attitudes like this make me want to quit open source when I encounter it in projects I maintain and/or contribute to.
What these guys clearly omitting is that our planet could be the host of not only human civilization. At least in the past.
Really cool, how is it unique in terms of what it can do, compared to a regular web browser?
1. It's native. Doesn't matter how you package a website, it still uses an HTML/JS/CSS engine to let you interact with it. Jason lets you effectively build a native app without actually building an app. The JSON markup is just an instruction to remote control native elements and native functions directly.

2. it's JSON based, it's meant for interacting with APIs, not a website. Websites don't work well because html/js/css have evolved to become something of monstrosity--which is both good and bad.

3. It assumes session. It assumes that you will be the sole user of the app, which browsers can't do for many reasons. So it has authentication/key management system built in.

4. More coming soon: This is just a first version, I intentionally cut down on many features I could have implemented because I wanted to see what people think first. I have a couple of production apps from which I extracted Jason. For an example check out www.ethan.fm It's running on Jason.
Very cool! What lead you down this path? This is not too far from creating a client using the web view container and letting users specify urls to their "apps" with perhaps certain JS hooks or CSS classes being required of apps to be rendered/used correctly in your client. Take one step further and you could just build a browser and user apps are any valid url with no restrictions. You can see where am I going. Just wondering about what led you to your idea?
Economically they are actually doing fairly well adjusted for natural resources and demographics. Arguably they could improve things through immigration, but looking at population density shrinking there population long term is probably a good thing.

PS: Don't forget GDP is a somewhat meaningless number in peacetime, it's per capita GDP that people notice. Their real issue is an unstistanable public debt.
There is no separate "common law court" in the UK. All UK courts, including the Crown Court, have the same requirement to use common law when it is applicable, and to use codified laws when they are applicable.

If this Karl Lentz is claiming there's a separate common law court, he is totally ignorant of the UK legal system.
This is a nice example of when that's a garbage answer. But I wasn't saying Nolen gave a technically sound answer (not denying it either--it all depends on the details of the case and the consequences). I just meant that it wasn't shabby treatment--if his technical judgment is wrong here, that wouldn't make him a jerk.
We've been interviewing external "AWS specialist" firms to help with the complexity, review our architecture, leverage new AWS services, etc.

Any recommendations? Have spoken with LogicWorks, 2ndWatch and RackSpace so far.
Does this one have an advantage over Wurstmeister's Kafka Dockerfile[0] or did you just make it for the experience? Either way, good job! It looks great.

[0] https://github.com/wurstmeister/kafka-docker
You are referring to transfer learning
For a country that prizes excellence, you'd think they'd be more focused on actually achieving it, and not just appearing to achieve it.
What you are describing is the status quo, but it is certainly possible for government to fund software development. As William points out in his presentation, it is already being done indirectly through software license purchases. I think it would be interesting to see what academics could achieve if they were offered some modest grants aimed at developing and maintaining viable open-source alternatives to all commercial software for which government is currently paying license fees.
I happen to have a BSc in this field and of course we learned the linked list. Teachers love to teach it as much as US interviewers seems to love asking about it in interviews. (Around here they seem to be to dumb to know about it or to smart to ask for it, I suspect the latter.)

That said I think gp's point is that if you ask for a doubly-linked list then you basically filter by having learned programming in school or not, or iow, if you told them how it was supposed to work instead of just saying the magic name then more of them would pass.
not all porn actors or drug dealers are bad people. you can change a place without forcing out the people.
AWS is fine, as long as you don't try to treat it like a cheap colocated server.

Build for redundancy, replace resources when they fail (rather than necessarily trying to fix them), and you're good. AWS has some learning curve in the form of its ACLs, APIs, and how the pieces fit together, but the result is that you have excellent fine-grained control over your stack.

You can outsource that knowledge to a platform provider, but you're gonna pay for it. Rackspace won't even sell you cloud hosting without a service contract.
> Rust can use simd too.

No it can't. Either accept that the nightly build of Rust is not the Rust we are talking about or stop discussing with me.

> Re:regex: my point exactly.

The problem with regex libraries are that they are to big so therefore doesn't reveal so much about inherent language performance.

> Most microbenchmarks are prone to slight differences in the implementation causing issues (and you can rarely translate code exactly, especially to something like rust which often requires a different structure of code from C. Same for any two other langauges).

Yes, obviously the implementation defines performance. That's what I wrote in the other thread part: "this discussion is about Rust vs C. Or rather clang 3.6.2/gcc 5.2.1 vs Rust 1.9.0 since language performance is very implementation dependent"

And fwiw, you can easily transliterate C code to C++ or to asm.

> 19% is well within this error box.

What error box? 19% is a huge difference.

> The fast_blank thing is this example. fast_blank is a carefully hand optimized C extension whose main purpose is being super fast.

I don't know what fast_blank is. Is it this https://github.com/SamSaffron/fast_blank/blob/master/ext/fas... C code wycatz managed to rewrite faster in Rust? That C code isn't well-optimized at all...

> I don't put much stock in microbenchmarks for anything other than order of magnitude comparisons.

Does that mean it is impossible to prove to you that C is at least 2x faster than Rust since twice is less than one order of magnitude?
Don't move the goalposts. It's about knowing at all, not knowing about gotchas.

But hey, even then, those gotchas overlap with why you shouldn't store prices in floats and devs you don't want to hire do that all the time too.
I strongly recommend that you talk to the same Sean Hull who was referenced in the article. He consulted with us at OpenRoadMedia.com and he was extremely talented and knowledgeable.

http://www.iheavy.com/
your line of reasoning is becoming very tangled.
This is not uncommon. Usually a product "family" is all from the same wafer. During packaging and testing either certain pads are not bonded out or certain fuses are blown out (via laser cutting, or as an efuse) to disable certain features that are not available on the lower end version.

In this case Intel is building certain accelerators for some of its customers, and enabling it only for them before shipping it out. I don't think any of these cores contain trade secrets, rather specific functions they've requested which helps accelerate their stack.
You know CL doesn't have a set type, though, right? It supports lists because it has to use a different data type. This turns several O(1) set functions into O(n), however.

Also, are you sure vectors are supported in CL? Looking over Common Lisp the Language, the adjoin/member/intersection functions only mention lists.

Finally, it's not even clear CL won't return buggy values, either. From the documentation on CL's intersection function: "If either list has duplicate entries, the redundant entries may or may not appear in the result." So it's just as GIGO as Clojure.
Larry Becraft Jr, an attorney who has fought the IRS, wrote in the 1990s on his website debunking these sovereign citizen theories-

http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/deadissues.htm

While I agree that these theories are ineffective and sometimes false, in a general sense they are true.

According to the US Code, the United States organic law is comprised of the Declaration of Independence(1776), the Articles of Confederation (1777), the Northwest Ordinance (1787) and the Constitution (1787). While mainstream academia says these have no legal or constitutional force, I'd disagree. In France, the organic law does have constitutional force and thus overrules statutes.

In essence, the United States is based on the natural rights acknowledge in the Declaration that says we have the "right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". And any government whether, local, or state or national that diminishes these natural rights, we have a duty to alter or abolish them. This is the Right of Revolution, although the establishment would say this is now invalid since we have democratic methods to change the government.

Regardless, American rights pre-existed the Constitution, the government and the Declaration. Our rights are derived by the nature of our humanity and a natural "God" in the context of Deism, not religion.

And there are endless moderate abuses of the state; wholesale denials of civil rights, aggressive and unjust actions by judges, prosecutors and police. It's akin to Chinese water torture, a mild form of oppression that has a cumulative effect resulting in gangs, distrust between the public and the police and endless crimes.
The C standards take the rather unique approach of dividing behavior into 4 categories:

* standard-defined. You can rely on this; if the code you write is limited to this, you're good to go.

* erroneous. The compiler is supposed to give you an error message when you write code like this.

* implementation-defined. A particular compiler can do something reasonable with the code. If you write code depending on implementation-defined behavior, you're ok, but your code is not portable. A compiler that doesn't do something reasonable in an I-D situation isn't required to generate an error, IIRC. On the other hand, whatever it does is supposed to be consistent.

* undefined. There are explicitly no requirements on the compiler. Whatever it feels like doing is fine with the committee. There's no requirement for a compiler warning or error (and by default, there probably won't be one).

The reason for the different categories is twofold:

1. C is a systems language. It's frequently used to do things that depend entirely on the specific hardware the code is running on. The result isn't portable, but in this case, it isn't supposed to be.

2. Performance. The idea is that the compiler can take portable code and produce a program that runs very quickly on the specific hardware. As long as the code doesn't do anything non-standard, the results are guaranteed to be good.

An example of the latter is signed integer overflow. (I can't remember whether it's I-D or undefined, but...) If you do MAXINT + 1, the resulting value can differ on different hardware; it could be the most-negative integer, it could be zero, it could cause a hardware trap. Now, the C standard could specify what the behavior should be, say generating a signal that kills the program with an error. But that would be very expensive on hardware that doesn't trap signed integer overflow---it would require a check after every arithmetic operation. So the standard doesn't say what should happen.

Another example is poking at memory that isn't allocated by your program (on the stack, or the result of malloc, say). You need to be able to express that for systems programming, but a general standard can't say anything reasonable about it.

As a result, C has a lot of unsafe corners where you can unintentionally invoke I-D or undefined behavior. In the first situation, your program will break if you try to port it. In the second, your program might work, most of the time. Or it might toss a runtime error. Or it could generate mangled results.

Or it could have a really nasty and embarrassing security hole.

As a result, C is regarded as a difficult and (unnecessarily?) dangerous language. And most languages that aren't C and aren't aimed at systems programming try very hard to avoid undefined behavior. Even if you manage to avoid security holes, the bugs resulting from mangled results are a royal pain in the ass to track down.
0.5% of pontificators can pontificate
The U.S. is not a Democracy, it is an Oligarchy
Some areas of finance in the US adhere to this as well.
You can expose Rust code as 'C' libraries and bind to them.
Sorry, I wasn't very clear.

> the authors essentially claim to know the probability of their own existence

The "quantity of interest" is the probability of aliens, but not the probability of aliens in all possible worlds, but rather the probability of aliens in this world. In this world, the probability that the authors exist is 1.
China seems to be heading to a fairly low per capita economy with serious long term issues. They have lots of land and a large population so they can project political power, but massive corruption at every level has huge negative implications. As does the looming political unrest.
With a $325-million investment in the company, of course Mr. Baron is optimistic. However, the first quarter earnings report is not that rosy.

WSJ: "Surging Model 3 Orders Don’t Solve Tesla’s Cash Need
Model 3 deposits a small fraction of Tesla's cash need."

http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2016/04/01/surging-model-3-or...

NASDAQ: Tesla Earnings Report:
http://www.nasdaq.com/earnings/report/tsla
Japan has a high life expectancy though, unless you mean mental health.
The Overinflated Fear of Being Priced Out of Housing
A Simple Content-Based Recommendation Engine in Python
Yeah, I just use plain old QWERTY, but I love reading these things to see how other people approach their own pain points.
Then a significant majority of teachers are not "good", by your definition.

Some simple arithmetic: given that teachers are excluded from that study if they work less than 35 hours, we discover at most (38.5-35)/(K-35) % of teachers work K hours/week. (This is based on the extreme case of x% of teachers working K hours, 1-x% working 35 hours.) So if 50 hours/week is "good", then at most 23% of teachers are good.

As for your subjective opinions about "thankless", what evidence - if any - would cause you to change your belief?
I don't understand how this is evidence of anything; it seems almost entirely speculative.
Trump or not, big data could be huge in 2016 vote
Here's my implementation, using tuples. But bear in mind that for almost everything Python's used for, Python lists (i.e. vectors) are good enough.

def cons(x, y):

return (x, y)

def car(x):

return x if x == () else x[0]

def cdr(x):

return x if x == () else x[1]

def append(x, y):

return y if x == () else cons(car(x), append(cdr(x), y))

def rev(x, y):

return y if x == () else rev(cdr(x), cons(car(x), y))

def reverse(x):

return rev(x, ())

def null(x):

return x == ()

def list(*tuple):

if len(tuple) < 1:
return ()
else:
x = ()
for i in reversed(range(len(tuple))):
x = cons(tuple[i], x)
return x

def mapcar(fn, x):

return () if x == () else cons(apply(fn, (car(x),)), mapcar(fn, cdr(x)))

----------------------

>>> import sexpr

>>> print sexpr.cons(1, 2)

(1, 2)

>>> x = sexpr.list(1, 2, 3, 4)

>>> print x

(1, (2, (3, (4, ()))))

>>> print sexpr.reverse(x)

(4, (3, (2, (1, ()))))

>>> print x

(1, (2, (3, (4, ()))))

>>> print sexpr.append(x, sexpr.cdr(sexpr.reverse(x)))

(1, (2, (3, (4, (3, (2, (1, ())))))))

>>> print sexpr.mapcar(lambda y : y ∗ y, x)

(1, (4, (9, (16, ()))))
Writing an OS: Baby Steps
Please don't take threads on generic political tangents, and please don't start political flamewars on Hacker News.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11882467 and marked it off-topic.
Just a little reminder that non-nutjobs can:

- Object to GMO crops on basis of politics and intellectual property.

- Support organic cultivation for reasons of environmental and cultural preservation.
It's usually not much better if a timing belt snaps either. Two valves can't occupy the same space at the same time, so often you get shattered metal everywhere anyways. The difference is that timing chain failures are rare, timing belt failures are expected.
Or they've moved so damn far into the UV that their photoresist doesn't even care about the wimpy just-beyond-visual peaks coming out of fluorescent lights.
It's always confusing to me how you people manage to learn to use computers. Is it just matters of law you deliberately misunderstand?
This question keeps me up at night, as I presume it does for my colleagues at Julia Computing. Not that switching to a fully commercial model is necessarily a bad thing, but Julia Labs, like any academic group, always has to worry about where funding will come from.
We added "probably" above.
The source I cited is not measuring contract hours. It's based on time diaries of work performed "yesterday". Why don't you try reading it before criticizing it?

Most likely you are simply mistaken/lying about the amount of hours you worked. Don't worry - you are in good company. Most people routinely give high numbers for how much they work "usually", as compared to how much they worked last week.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2011/06/art3full.pdf
I just commented below to another question that may answer your question https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11884901

I think HTML/JS/CSS have become too powerful which is a good thing, at least on desktops. But when we bring that power onto more specialized devices such as our smartphones it works as weakness instead of strength. For example, people may love super rich interactive websites on desktop but it becomes pretty much useless on our phones, which have small screen. But browsers still need to ship with these features because that's what they're supposed to do--follow the web standards.

I am actually working on a blog post to talk about this in more detail, probably will publish in next couple of days. Please follow me on www.twitter.com/gliechtenstein if you are interested.

As for how this was conceived, I've been working on quite a few apps last couple of years, some I released some I didn't. One of the apps I'm working on is http://www.textethan.com and I got frustrated how I have to rebuild everything whenever I had something to change, so I built everything into a markup. Then when I looked at the end result I saw something that can be potentially very powerful so I decided to extract it out into its own app. Hope this answers the question :)
I never understood why people rarely take this approach. It's not as if these things occur in isolation.
What methodologies did you use to help yourself learn the new layout quicker?

Do you ever think you will reach your QWERTY speeds?
Has any place every imposed rent controls, but later removed them?

Some of those quoted in the article speak of rent control as a temporary measure, to buy time while other more permanent solutions to be brought to bear. Does that ever happen?
Google is building a self-driving car R&D center near Detroit
This is awesome. I've been dabbling in a similar concept using CouchDB. Have you thought about using something like CouchDB to enable easy master-master replication of data between users? Also, is any part of this open source? Thanks!
He said "benevolent", and also "really wants to help humanity".
The relevant rules for trade wars are "national treatment" and "most favoured nation". You will see those terms quoted extensively in any legal trade dispute, notably before the WTO.

Labour laws per se do not violate mfn or nt, so long as the labour laws apply domestically as well as to imports (since trade wars are essentially about import tariffs).

The primary reason we do not apply labour law to the producers of imports is because labour is poorly organized, under funded, and lacks political will and/or forethought.