skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Note: Behind the link is a join-only website.

It's just a Windows 10 tablet

https://medium.com/@evedevices/eve-community-platform-where-...
MIT Needs the Weirdos: What's Really Going on in Senior Haus
That's because the OSes on which plan9port runs already have plenty of apps that can emulate a vt100.

Your question suggests to me that you still don't get it: nothing in Plan 9 -- not the shell, not the ability to issue command lines and get stdout and stderr back -- depends on vt(1). vt(1) is used only to communicate with (tty drivers on) other OSes, over the network.

Just as most of time, a user of OS X has no need for an X server, most of the time, a Plan 9 user has no need for vt(1) or for ncurses.

I'm not suggesting you give Plan 9 a try BTW: on its best day ever, it had fewer than 1000 users, and if it was ever going to break 1000 users, it would have done so by now. The whole OS (excluding some fonts) has been available under an OSI- FSF- and DFSG-approved license since 2002.

So for example, Plan 9 will almost certainly never have a web browser capable a delivering a satisfactory experience on more than half of the 1000 most popular web sites -- because porting such a web browser to Plan 9 would cost 10s of millions of dollars in programmer time, and no one is going to spend that money to get fewer than 1000 new users.
The question is why the software takes up so much more. Firefox is the pain point for me on my 2008 Macbook, for everything else, it's perfectly snappy. I block ads, don't play games or look at animation heavy sites, but even doing nothing but displaying pages, it sits at 2.5G RAM (out of 4) and 100% of one of my two CPU cores. I'd run an old version if it wasn't for the security updates. Utterly ridiculous.
Thanks for the lesson in acoustics but I'm not sure what any of this has to do with OP. He wanted a Soundblaster.

Also this doesn't add up:

> in fact evne PCIe has too high latency compared to PCI, and when the switch from PCI to PCIe happened, soundcard makers had to put a ARM chip on the PCIe cards to do some calculations that originally were supposed to be done by the PC main CPU, because the latency of PCIe was too high.

You say that the convolution was supposed to be performed by the host CPU, but had to be moved to the PCIe card due to latency. That doesn't add up. If the convolution can be calculated in realtime by the CPU, then the only data that has to travel to the soundcard is the 16/44 (or 2496) audio which is easily handled by PCI, PCIe, USB, etc. with negligible latency.

If a processor had to be introduced, it was to perform convolutions because the host CPU couldn't keep up.
Potentially science and technology, things that can be transmitted via radio. Maybe Mars could setup a hollywood style entertainment industry :)

As far as minerals, I really doubt there are any which would be cheaper to mine on mars, load on a rocket and transport back to earth, than to mine directly on earth. Even if you build a space elevator on Mars (which is much easier than building one on earth).

Maybe you could setup a 3 way trade. Even without the space elevator, it's cheaper to ship things from Mars' surface to basically anywhere in the solar system than it is from earth's surface.

So Mars could ship oxygen, water, CO2 filters, building materials, maybe even food to an asteroid station (whatever they can't source locally) and the asteroid station could ship whatever they mine from the asteroid to earth.
Apple Is Fighting a Secret War to Keep You from Repairing Your Phone
That's the old website. Some of the links may be broken (e.g. try downloading the layout). Here's the current site: http://www.workmanlayout.com/blog/
Oh, that's really annoying too.
I think this sentiment (pro users want to upgrade their hardware) is inaccurate for most professionals. Hobbyists and freelance/self-employed may want to upgrade their hardware but a professional generally doesn't care. They just want a machine that works and a reasonable path to a new machine that doesn't affect their productivity. That upgrade path is really smooth on OS X. Migration assistant plus thunderbolt cable plus target disk mode makes it really easy.
We have similar crank theories in the US, that you have surrended ownership of yourself to the state, but you can get it back via some weird trick, and what amazes me is the internal inconsistency.

If the people running the government are trying to enslave you via the law, they're really not going to leave (or honor) a loophole that sets you free.
The article talked about mining employee data before they became employees and flagging potential new hires based on automated sentiment analysis. I don't have a problem with a company trying to find examples of employees representing the company poorly. I do have a problem with using automated system to classify people into fire and don't hire categories based on something as inexact as sentiment analysis.

Any company should be terrified of using any kind of automated system like this to reject employees. If for whatever reason it starts kicking out a higher percentage of employees from a protected class, you open yourself up to huge lawsuits.

Sentiment analysis is an art, and I'd be surprised if their algorithm didn't have different accuracy rates for different dialects.
Next generation time travelling debugger for Java
I think it comes down to "What? You mean I'm not the authority around here?"

Authoritarians are going to have a problem with that. Where there's a $HOLY_BOOK or $HOLY_RELIGION, their schtick is always that truth flows through them.

To be fair, science has some of the same issues. But science has a feedback loop which tries to reality test ideas. So shouting about how right you are and verbally abusing your enemies only ever gets you so far.

Ideologies don't have that. They only have persuasion and rhetoric - which are far more effective as political tools, but far less effective if you'd like to keep your beliefs reasonably close to reality.
Coming Out 2.0 – Human Development Project
Part of me hopes it's part of / the start of an elaborate game, or just fantastic promotional material for a TV show or movie - it means nothing now, but gains a lot of press and attention which is repeated after the big reveal. A kind of "Gabbo is coming" (for all the Simpsons fans).
They are hiring you to effectively be an office decoration, not a productive worker. So open-plan eye candy is rational so long as the workers themselves refuse to stand up for being treated in a minimally healthy way and refuse such companies.

In theory, sure, but does it hold up in practice? In theory, programmers have leverage right now because there is more need for their expertise than there are programmers to fill that need. In practice, I see businesses who are perfectly willing to leave those positions open for years rather than change their hiring and/or office policies. Boycotting them won't change this because "best practices" in tech are viral and completely irrational. They work more like fashions than they do peer reviewed research. Even if everybody boycotted those startup companies and they had absolutely no engineers, they'd still get funding and they'd still influence tech "fashion". They've gotten really good at it over the years, too, employing propaganda techniques right out of Mao's little red book[0].

Anyway, all of that is to say we the employees don't have the leverage people think we do, even when our work is in demand. We're being manipulated en masse and most of us would rather work and keep ourselves fed and comfortable than take on any kind of risk. After all, if we were able to tolerate risk we would have opted out of this nonsense years ago and started our own company.

[0]: Zed Shaw - The Scams that Derail Programming, Motherfucker: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5Xh2Go-jkM
What's their pricing model, if you don't mind my asking? They provide very little info on their website.
Wow, wish I'd actually enumerated that list for the article. This is a really good summary of my points on the set/union type bugs.
I was in Kashmir a couple of years ago and Aircel 3G was almost invariably faster and more reliable than the BSNL ADSL "Broadband".
Speed ties to "not awkward". Awkwardness is probably very important. Anytime something is awkward there is a decent chance it will trigger a mental interrupt. Personally, I've been cutting back on anything that adds mental load not related to the thing I'm actually trying to do.
Just as important for USA readers is the line "They then hooked her up to a machine that cycled through her blood 32 times over the course of seven hours, in order to collect stem cells. Those stem cells were then purified, wiped of any memory of the disease, to later be transplanted into Molson through a blood transfusion."

Our FDA has been making life a pain in the butt for anything that takes stem cells from a person, processes them, and then puts them back into that person.
> That might be the normal cost of one of 50 different Dell laptops but for Apple it's their lowest end unit and it lacks a display.

Now you're shifting the goal from the cost of the toolchain to the cost of Apple's lineup as a whole. It doesn't matter what the top of the range Apple lineup costs, to get started with iOS development, you just need the cheapest Mac mini.

You can pick up a monitor for next to nothing. Here's a Dell monitor for under $40: https://www.amazon.co.uk/DELL-Monitor-Computer-Screen-Inch/d...

> The PPC MacBook after the Intel Switch, the first gen Core Duo MacBook after the 32-64bit switch, non-retina iDevices... I'm on a phone or I'd keep going.

Wait, you've moved the goalposts again. We're talking about the ability to buy a computer and continue to use it for development for a reasonable period of time. We're not talking about your computer not being the latest model. Just because Apple introduced retina screens on the iPhone 4, it doesn't mean that you had to go out and buy a new Mac to develop for it.

> If your context is "successful developer with a hit app" then yes, but the reality is that the majority of devs won't be anywhere near that successful.

I'm talking about typical professional iOS developers. The majority of them are successful. I suspect you're talking about app entrepreneurs, which is a whole different ballgame. Most iOS developers aren't making their own applications, they are making applications for other people. And yes, the cost of iOS development is trivial for them.

It's true, lots of applications don't make money – that's because they fit into the business in other ways. For instance, your bank's application is free, but I can assure you that the developers who built it aren't worried about the cost of an entry-level Mac mini.

The context is this: If you do this professionally, then you can afford the developer toolchain easily. If you're not employed as an iOS developer and you're just making applications for yourself? Sure, I can see how you'd consider it a moderately expensive hobby if you didn't already own a Mac. But we're really talking about two different things there.

> I'm holding them to the same standards. Microsoft offers tons of free tools for managing large pools of enterprise machines, maintaining their patch levels, group policies, access control, etc. Linux has similar support.

You've shifted the goalposts again. You were talking about having to hire somebody to manage Apple computers. IT manpower is required for any platform, so singling Apple out as special for requiring IT manpower is holding them to a different standard.

I really don't think the enterprise is relevant to your argument here. If a company employs enough iOS developers to require large pools of machines and more than a basic $2/month MDM solution, then they really aren't going to consider a $499 machine "incredibly expensive", whether it comes with or without a monitor.
I'm pretty happy with my decision to keep Facebook apps off my phone. I'll check the mobile site once in a while to see the news feed, but that's it.

Of course I have google backing everything up, so maybe that's not much better. Time to write a little script to routinely backup photos from there to my own hard drive.
So "Google works closely with Hillary" is sourced to Hillary in the past corresponding with a former employee of hers who is now heading a Google subsidiary? That's borderline tin-foil-hat levels of conspiracy theory. By that logic, Google "works closely" with Oracle via the connection to Eric Schmidt; that's just as believable if you ignore the messy lawsuits they're engaged in.
Oh yay. More of the Freeman nonsense.
A lot of people don't seem to get what he's on about, but the entire history of humans is one of moving around, exploring and settling new places. It would actually be very weird and novel to not settle Mars. The last major settlement was the Americas after Columbus, and that will likely be what happens here, minus the genocide. Things do improve a bit over the years.

The next question is, why Mars in particular? And the simple answer is, it's the closest thing to Earth in the Solar system. The moon is close by, but it's harsh, desolate and resource-poor. Weak gravity, terrible 'days', no atmosphere etc. Proximity is the only thing it has going for it. Mars, on the other hand, is more like the most extreme places on earth - a combination of Antarctica and Atacama - very hard but doable. Once you have regular, not-super-expensive transport, proximity is not such a problem.

The next question is, how would you get there? And this is where all the fun technical talk is happening. You'll need Big Freaking Rockets to escape the Earth's gravity, but then there's a lot of ways it can go after that, for example, can they make a self-fueling MAV in time for 2024? Or it is easier, though more expensive, to just shoot more BFRs then?

Then the question is where will the money for all this come from? Well, I don't imagine SpaceX will be doing this alone. Space agencies spend a bit of money on this, SpaceX makes a profit from their launch business and Musk has said SpaceX will go public in order to fund their Mars colony. Several hundred billion is a lot of money, but spread out over decades and amongst space agencies and companies is doable.

The final question, and one Musk hasn't answered very well IMO is why would millions of people go to Mars? What are the economics of it? Getting a couple of hundred (or thousand) pioneers is not a problem, you'll find tons of people willing to risk everything for far less, but how would you get million person cities up there? The best answer I have is, people will go there because it will be the only place where new things are possible. I think we're starting to see a backlash against "disruption" and it's somewhat justified. Living peacefully with 10 billion humans on one place is hard enough without some of those people rocking the boat. I'm talking about things like AI, human genetic modification, but also just plain old politics, traditions, power structures, etc. Mars would be new wide-open place where you can set up shop and do anything, whether founding new societies or doing dangerous engineering. This would also work very well economically, as Earth would be able to outsource a lot of experimentation and risky activities and there would be a profitable information (not resource) based planetary trade.
We've already been to the moon first though, several times. Mars is the next (huge) step forward in difficulty.
The risk vs. reward profile for these jobs is very different. A stock trader can be successful one year and make up for losses the next, so long as he is successful more often than not. If an excellent teacher has a 25% chance of being fired every evaluation session, he has nothing to compensate for this risk -- just low pay, unconscionable hours, and a very difficult, thankless job.

Most teachers are teachers because of belief in helping children and personal dedication. Flipping a coin and saying "you're fired if I get two heads in a row" every year means that is gone.

It is not innumeracy to suggest there are so many confounding variables that are nearly impossible to separate from the treatment that it isn't a realistic or effective method for making real decisions about performance that negatively impact the careers and lives of dedicated public servants. It is innumeracy to suggest that "the bigger the effect size, the easier it is to measure" -- it is not incorrect technically, but it is very misleading. No matter how large the effect size, it can be very difficult to separate the effect of different variables with limited data (which is always the case -- we are testing one teacher against another)

Granted, I haven't read those particular sources and I'm not sure if this is the approach they take.

Of course phrases like "left wing mathematics denialism" are purposefully incendiary, contentless, and laughably absurd -- they belong somewhere like Breitbart, not here. Most Mathematicians are left-wing, for the record. I've never heard of anyone denying the pigeon hole principle in that context (or any context), but straw men are a very effective rhetorical device.
Mostly what scientists and lawyers can learn from each other is humility.

For both (in different ways) invesitgating the truth of purported facts is important -- as is understanding the laws governing those facts. But lawyers are dealing with interested, intelligent agents, some of whom will try to game whatever environment they are faced with.

Science has less of this problem, so it pushes harder into realms of precision that lawyers ought not dare enter. But scientists who wade into policy or legal fights should remember that they are n00bs who's methods are easily perverted.
>(Another example of left wing mathematics denialism applies to the pigeon hole principle. If you have N houses and K > N people, K - N people won't have a house.)

Can't win an argument because the facts aren't on your side? Bring up a red herring for a random insult! Why all the talk of left wing mathematics denialism? This is a perfect example of $GROUP_I_DISAGREE_WITH's typical meaningless sophistry!!
Japan is very clean. You should visit there once. It will change your standards of cleanliness for ever.

I used to think Toronto was a clean city. After visiting Tokyo, I see that very few areas in Toronto are actually clean.
I did it on holidays. Switched to dvorak for programmers 6 years ago. Never again pain in my wrist. I'm a vim user, that was a little difficult. Total time to be confortable with the change about 2 weeks. After that it became my main layout.
We use Sikuli for automatiom tests on both Windows and Mac. Other than occasional issues with its image recognition features it works great and serves us well. We have Jenkins automation jobs spin up VMs in VirtualBox, load build artifacts on the VM, and run Sikuli tests. All test output gets pulled back into the Jenkins output and parsed for successes/failures. Makes it possible for us to test across different OSes use the same Sikuli scripts.
That's fine, but so why don't we? If the whole purpose of downloading all these courses is so that we can continue to access them after Coursera goes full moneygrub mode, surely someone is willing to sacrifice their Coursera account for this?
Did you post the wrong links by mistake? Those don't contradict the science in question.
When one of those users at least, has a fork that changes a number of key points, I don't think the term "standard" applies besides being a name, any more.
In order of appearance:

Who in the US can authoritatively certify Chinese labor?

You certify it just like anything else that is hard to inspect: require companies to sign binding documents that certify their goods as in compliance with the law, and fine them when proof is found this is not the case. It doesn't get rid of violations, but it does cut them down a lot.

And what about the majority of iPhones which are not for sale in the USA?

Just because one country jumps off a bridge, everyone else should follow suit? I find this kind of reasoning neither here nor there.

what keeps Apple from leaving the USA to escape the "no-slave law"

Nothing except profit. Why walk away from the most profitable markets you have, even if due to new legislation the profits are a little less obscene than they used to be?

how can they compete against a foreign company which can use "slaves?"

Because foreign companies wouldn't be able to use slaves if they want to sell their goods in the US or EU.

how do you combat the black market in the USA for these "slave phones?

There's already an illegal cheap phone circuit, for stolen phones. Besides, it might be a good thing if crime rings start pushing phones on people instead of pushing drugs. It would also be amusing if people would steal phones to fence them for money to buy illegal phones.

You can keep finding nits to pick, but ... I see point nor reason to do so.
Well, a rather large part of the country want nothing to do with embryonic stem cells as they are linked directly with abortions. Non-embryonic stem cell research is pretty much only opposed by a small sliver of the population (generally the type that opposes everything). Treatments that use your own body as part of the cure are widely accepted as fine (well, expect by the FDA, but that's another article).
Sorry, yes they both have a free offering.
1) I am aware of deep learning, and the improvements made circa 2012 or so, but it is still ultimately failing to make advanced correlations between differing training sets, a strong memory, and a meaningful distinction between high-level abstractions and low-level inputs (although all these things are being addressed in one way or another with incremental improvements). And also effectively sharing learned data among separate entities or reteaching it.

2) These things are all very human-like, but they are still sub-problems IMHO :)
Of course not, go for it. On Windows I use https://github.com/SamHocevar/wincompose to type that and a bunch of other useful characters. On FreeBSD and Linux, .XCompose.
An alternative is if you believe in the principle of terrestrial mediocrity, that we are on a fairly average planet in a fairly average bit of the universe where fairly average things happen, the fact that life popped up on our planet in less than a billion years implies it probably has done so in loads of other places.

Quote Martin Amis's The Information:

“The history of astronomy is the history of increasing humiliation. First the geocentric universe, then the heliocentric universe. Then the eccentric universe – the one we’re living in. Every century we get smaller. Kant figured it all out, sitting in his armchair. What’s the phrase? The principle of terrestrial mediocrity.”
They seem to go about these things in the wrong way. Take Messenger for example, there was no good reason to remove access to this via a browser on mobile devices. I don't want to have to install an app for something that was previously available in a browser. If you can't provide me with all of the features of messenger in the browser then that's fine. I thought we were meant to be progressing towards a truly open web accessible to all, regardless of device.

This is just another example of Facebook doing whatever they please just because they can. I wonder how long that will last until people start moving away from the platform.
I kinda despise non dogfooding projects. Like realizing that IBM rarely ever uses it's own modeling tools and principles to develop internal or commercial software (at least arount that time). And yes I liked lisp because of its underlying beauty. Scheme did one step further. It reuses itself in many ways. That clojure implementation isn't leveraging it's own quality feels unlispy but alas... it's also a huge effort to blend an immutable first lisp onto a JVM ecosystem. Reminds me of Scala a bit.. one lead dev quit over frustration about the state of the compiler. Maybe seeking 'beauty' is just an immature phase and after a while whatever works enough for you to sell ...