skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The examples in the paper are in APL which uses a special, non-ascii character set to express its syntax. J uses the standard ASCII character set. Readability comes with familiarity. If you want closer to natural language for programming then see Inform [1]. I think readability in Inform hinders compos ability and adds up to some lengthy programs. Mathematicians take the time to familiarize themselves with Greek letters, and other seemingly odd symbols, so it can be understood across cultures and languages, and is succinct.

In APL, you can change indexing from 0-based to 1-based. In J it is 0-based, so the need to increment the sequence with the increment verb '>:' as follows:

+/\>:i.5

1 3 6 10 15

You could also rename or group and rename functions for readability if working with others not familiar with J:

range =: >:@(i.) NB. @ joins the two verbs increment (>:) and index (i)
range 5

1 2 3 4 5

add_reduce =: +/\ NB. rename +/ (plus apply) and \ (infix)
add_reduce range 5

1 3 6 10 15

+/ range 5 NB. This is a comment (from the Latin 'Nota Bene')

15

I am playing with Idris, and do not know Haskell much, but I still find it more like mathematics when composing functions in J as opposed to Idris/Haskell. I see Idris/Haskell as more easy to express the proofs in a style to a proofs textbook, but I see J as more representative of the actual mathematical formulas. They are short, and can be easily manipulated without so much typing.

People sometimes criticize J/K/Q/APL the way they do when they write about Forth or Lisp, but it doesn't take away from them. The Rosetta lander had a lot of mission-critical code in Forth, but there are not many who like the syntax or way of composing programs.

J's learning materials have greatly improved from when I first looked at it [2].

kdb+/q beats the pants off of Spark, and Jd is the J programming language's answer to kdb+/q.

Array processing with a language that has arrays as its fundamental unit makes sense, and that is where it is all headed. Whether it is one of the existing array languages or a hybrid is the question. All those high salaries programming in Q is not a myth, and companies don't pay for no return on salary.

FYI - The creator of Pandas, Wes Mckinney, was studying or looking over J for his next venture. The link seems to have disappeared, so perhaps it is not in development, or it is being developed in secret!;)

[1] http://inform7.com/

[2] http://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Guides/GettingStartedSerious
Survey of research into the effects of pornography
You mean you stuck around to find out it still worked?

Man, I love Uber. Or at least the idea.
Capitalism is not a natural state at all. It needs a sophisticated society, a rule of law, police and a majority who believe it is just. If this were not so, the disadvantaged would simply take or steal what they think they deserve.
> Under socialism, the critics would be too busy trying to get the next meal to theorize critiques of capitalism.

Under capitalism in America there are plenty of people too busy trying to get the next meal than to do anything else.

People in socialist Scandinavia are generally doing better.
They didn't throw "millions" at the idea. If you read the article carefully, they stopped after spending $1M, i.e., with 2/3 of their investors' money still in the bank. Yes, maybe they could've stopped/pivoted sooner, but once you are experimenting with something, you need to be patient enough to give it a shot.
And it looks like the investors opted for sticking with the team for their next shot as opposed to taking that money back - an option that was on the table. That's an indicator of trust, so maybe the team isn't that clueless after all.
>It's not illegal to sign a contract to give somebody money in exchange for something.

Lets split illegal into 2 words criminal and unenforceable. You statement can be right and it can be wrong depending on the facts. Enter most any contract with a minor, its unenforceable. How about you take my money in exchange for something, but you don't give me that something and never intended to give me that something, that is criminal fraud.

>If we sign a paper contract that includes a clause giving me permission to withdraw money, and the contract also explicitly says that only the letter of the contract should be considered and not its intent or spirit, why would this be considered theft if I decide to exercise this clause?

Generally, because as a society we don't want criminals taking advantage of vulnerable members of our society including minors, elderly or non accredited investors. Moreover, we especially don't want them to escape liability by hiding behind a contract that the victim signed. For the record I am not really addressing it as theft directly, as I don't think I ever called what may happen on the DAO theft even if the money gets released.
Silicon Valley is plucking top AI talent from universities
What's the best alternative to capitalism in your mind?

Capitalism is pretty good at making sure people are doing something actually useful to others, that's where a lot of the satisfaction of work lies in the first place.

Not all work is equally satisfying as well. Most kinds of work would make me miserable. Capitalism is great because you have a lot of wiggle room - you choose within the intersection of your abilities and what the world wants.

If your preferred work is something useless to society like digging random holes or whatever, you may be able to do that in a capitalist system as well if we implement some sort of basic income.
> When the upper middle class and rich can leverage themselves into assets that grow proportionally to inflation, they get richer and poor people get poorer.

So, basically, "When in a capitalist society, the upper middle class and rich get richer and poor people get poorer."
The most interesting thing for me is seeing how the "public comments" section such as this one has started to shift.

I remember back when nearly everyone defended the system and people were shot down for suggesting that perhaps those who have power and influence try to influence and exercise power. (For instance, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1182518, 6 years ago)

I think people still deny that this change has happened which make me think it's just a temporary thing.
The idea isn't that people will put on a VR headset to kill time at work- their goal is for people to be wearing a VR headset at work in the first place.
Obama is shit. His policies are what have killed the low end entry level worker. It's honestly ironic. Bush piled on the debt and tanked the economy then obama takes it to the next level. I don't have time to argue specifics you can read on your own. I am concerned that youth will not have the compass of true north that the older generations have. Most of Silicon Valley is full of topic skewed world views with a dusting of white guilt on top. God help us all Language is being shifted in a single generation.
> Under socialism, the critics would be too busy trying to get the next meal to theorize critiques of capitalism.

Obviously untrue. Even under Leninism and its offshoots (and leaving aside whether or not those are actually socialism) people (not the same people) were able to develop both new critiques of capitalism and critiques of the system that they were living under (in the latter case, this was a dangerous act, but people did it nevertheless.)
My god, you're so right - any criticism of capitalism is indeed preposterous! You should write a strongly-worded letter to the author of the article to set her straight.
I don't necessarily agree. Some businesses simply can't be started without a ton of cash (like building cars like you mentioned). I don't think you could bootstrap a new supermarket concept. Sometimes you just have to get investors to try out an idea.
Back to Basics Source Code Comprehension
Also, see this:

http://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Guides/GettingStartedSerious
Joichi Ito’s Research Statement
Asking people who are not thriving in a capitalistic economy (as numerous as they may be) what they think about capitalism is like asking the weakest sheep what they think about survival of the fittest. Of course they're going to associate the idea with hardship and injustice. No surprise there.

But I feel it, and I feel for everyone affected by it (and I'm not implying that those people are necessarily weak, by the way). Unfortunately, there will always exist some degree of disparity in resources and prosperity in society (at least, any "free" society), and a "fair" system is just one that provides opportunities for everyone; it doesn't give to those who aren't deserving (and of course, the definition of "deserving" is very much up for debate). But if those who do contribute more to society aren't rewarded any more than those who don't, then fairness ceases to exist.

What many people (especially the younger generation) fail to recognize is that capitalism is both the problem and the solution here. The real problem is, our current form of capitalism functions nothing like true "free market" capitalism. In a free market, education would be cheaper (you think the government subsidies, grants, scholarships, etc are doing anything but raise the price of tuition?). Every industry and business would have to prove their value to the masses (rather than certain players getting preferential treatment from government subsidies); otherwise our dollars would be voted elsewhere. As long as the government could ensure a level of transparency, we'd all get what we pay for, and of course, charities would still be able to do tremendous good in giving aid to the less fortunate (those who may be down on their luck, but not deadbeats). I truly believe that America's economic situation would be improved by those two things: increased transparency, and more freedom in the market.

When I hear someone blaming capitalism for their economic hardships, I like to imagine that person years in the future, now successful, having earned their way to a decent living. I imagine telling that person "ok, congratulations, but you didn't believe in capitalism, so give me all your wealth - I promise I'll look after it". And at that point, I can't imagine any response other than a resounding string of 4-letter words telling me to get lost.
Not the middle class. Upper middle class. The distinction is important, in my opinion.
Ecommerce is supposedly capital intensive
It also requires an extensive bureaucracy that is only reasonable with enough technology.
Stylish Romanian Girl – The Emporialist│romanian street fashion magazine
the fact that we are living in a racist capitalistic nation does not make your Communist crap acceptable. Any and every communist experiment ever endeavored ends in failure and starvation. .. Usually at the hand of an oppressive tyrant. Take your screwed up world view and start your own communist utopia on an island far away from here. America is not a communist country. Progress your way out of this country.
Two words: Ignorance and greed.
In the video Mark Zuckerberg says "we have about 400 people working on this now" at 0:50 in.
The unfairness component comes from your genetics and upbringing, both outside your control - some combinations are better suited to navigate this economy than others.

So what do we as a society do with those at a disadvantage, sometimes severe (eg IQ below 90?) we can move toward finding ways to include them, or we can move toward excluding them. The problem from the article is a societal one trend toward exclusion, not economic as you pointed out.
Sucralose is 600x sweeter than sugar so it's sold by equivalent volume serving. I consumed the equivalent of 5lbs of sugar by volume in 6 months. This may sound like a lot if you eat out every meal, but I eat breakfast and dinner at home. I use/d sucralose/sugar in my coffee, oatmeal, iced-tea and homemade desserts.

A lot of people here say I should have just cut sugar and dealt with it. I missed it way too much. Before the first week of my low/no sugar diet was over, I was about to throw in the towel. With sucralose, I've made it 6 months now.
Why apply the qualifier at all if not to emphasize the point? As there is only one CFO, there was no need to disambiguate.
Impossible, not impractical if the embedded interest you're attempting to leapfrog has already paid off the legislators.
Most programs aren't about a return value. They are about global state, including IO and huge data structures. The functional programming hacks for IO are gross. The issue of dealing with huge data structures is generally not solved; when you make a tiny change to a terabyte you have an awkward problem.

It's not standard C, but gcc will let you mark a function as being pure. Even without that, the compiler may notice.

I don't agree that expressing a partially applied function at runtime helps clarity and readability. I suppose tastes differ, and some people have bad taste. :-) The real trouble is that this is not something that is natively supported by the hardware. Your language either interprets a very unnatural machine, or it drags along a compiler.

Interpreting a very unnatural machine is unappealing. It distances you from reality, making it difficult to reason about how your code will perform on the hardware.

Dragging along a compiler is sometimes, rarely, justified. It's appropriate when the partially applied function must run for a long amount of time. Sometimes people even drag along a compiler for a different processor, such as a GPU. We find this to some extent with CUDA and OpenCL.
Is this answer being down voted? Programmers SE is a good suggestion, and allows more open ended questions.
Now you're just confusing the concepts because we don't have separate words for them.

This conversation is about longer-term happiness, not the brief rush you get from buying something or getting something in the mail. I think there's a strong argument that in that sense of the word "happy", Amazon actively contributes to the unhappiness of their customers.
> Capitalism is basically

obtain a large enough, easily available enough pile of money today, to invest in productive resources, to generate a long term higher than inflation income stream.

It has very little to do with markets except rather abstractly along the lines of a financial market being one way to obtain that money.

The article has it backwards. Capitalism as a system has already completely given up on young americans. Almost completely closed and nearly impenetrable. Some young americans have noticed and unchecked the "like" right back at it, as if it cares.

Its hard to run capitalism efficiently enough for it to work without free markets or in the presence of insane levels of corruption or income inequality. Young people will never experience economic conditions where capitalism works, so liking it or not is fairly irrelevant if its not going to work anyway.
So from your eyes, everyone is equal? Rofl.
> QE and inflation is a direct wealth transfer from the poor to the rich.

Inflation is a direct wealth transfer from holders of net dollar denominated assets to holders of net dollar denominated liabilities. (QE is not relevant, except as a potential source of inflation.)
> QE and inflation is a direct wealth transfer from the poor to the rich.

In high-inflation environment the debtors typically fare better than lenders. Aren't poor people likelier to be debtors and rich people likelier to be lenders?
The phrase "direct wealth transfer" might be too strong, but it's clear that in many cases inflation has a disproproportionate impact on low income people than on high income people. Higher income earners are more likely to obtain regular pay-rises than lower income earners, so inflation has less of a negative impact on their pay. Lower income people tend to spend the vast majority of their income on meeting their basic needs, so any decline in real income has an immediate negative impact on their standard of living. Higher income people tend to allocate much more of their income to saving or investment, so a reduction in their real income has a much smaller impact on their standard of living. If an economic change makes the poor poorer, while the rich stay where they are (or even get richer), is it wrong to call that a "wealth transfer"?
No, he/she didn't say that and that's not true. We've oscillated a lot on the matter, between the gilded age, the new deal, the postwar years, and the reagan years into whatever the heck is going on now.

QE definitely benefitted the rich much more than the poor. Obama seems to have favored it because it was the only demand-side (sorta) stimulus that he could make happen with the politics being what they are. But nothing happens in a vacuum and it's not a definitive statement about capitalism vs other systems.
Agreed, I accidentally a word. Edited it in.
>" there are plenty of people too busy trying to get the next meal than to do anything else."

Incredible that they have on average 6 hours per day to watch television, given how busy you say they are.
10, tops. But yes, it's slower.
Teardown of a Cisco CSS 11503 (TLS 1.2 intolerant) (2015)
Even if they let the attacker get away with it this time, it would only be showing that Ethereum community used their discretion and chose not to in this case.
This isn't some local trend in history, everyone is born with anti-market bias. We come from small bands of hunter-gatherers with fairness and egalitarianism built in through reciprocal altruism. The problem is a lot of market policies seem unfair when you look at them at a glance. That's why older people become more fiscally conservative (including older liberals) because you start to understand the underlying mechanisms and the empirical support of market strategies. Read Bryan Caplan's "The Myth of the Rational Voter" if you want a more thorough discussion of this.
I think that the only thing that will make text obsolete is synthetic, panpsychic telepathy.
People tend to overestimate their own competence (and I suppose intelligence), so they must also see anyone who agrees with them as being of high intelligence too. That means we think the politicians we vote for are smart. It's just the ones other people vote for that aren't.

Nobody will say "I want X but I'm not very smart so the politician who promises X is also not very smart and I won't vote for him."
"Policies like a $15 per hour minimum wage — brought to mainstream attention not by Sanders, but by striking fast food workers years before — are not radical, but a pragmatic corrective to decades of wage depreciation. The minimum wage, which peaked in 1968, would have reached $21.72 in 2012 had it kept pace with inflation."

This is very, very false. Adjusted for inflation, the minimum wage in the US peaked at $10-11 in the late 1960s (http://money.cnn.com/interactive/economy/minimum-wage-since-...). Adjusted for PPP, the country with the highest minimum wage is Australia, at $11 per hour (excluding tiny Luxembourg and San Marino; data at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minimum_wages_by_count...). No one has anything remotely like a $22 minimum wage. The median hourly wage in the US is below $22, ie. more than half of all jobs pay less than that.
As far as I know, the internet lacks an adequate solution for this. If it existed, it would have enough users that we would all already know about it.

Instead there's just a fragmented bunch of relatively small forums, group chats, mailing lists, etc.
Around 70% of the hashrate is controlled by 5 Chinese-controlled mining pools.
I feel the same way. It is very bizarre! Reminds me of that scene from Holy Grail when the guards are just smiling and nodding when the prince is trying to escape from the castle.

But how do they know? Someone must know. Is it broadcast to their headsets?
They're probably thinking of memes and emojis as well. It can't be argued that well-structured text is a strong suit among individuals communicating with Facebook.
I'm not picking sides here, but I generally stop reading someone's opinion on political matters when they start with blame for the president who presided during the time they believe the problems started.

Really, Obama himself is solely responsible for this? Not the party, or both parties, but specifically Barak Obama?

That's a tough sell for me.
Not sure if that is relevant. Source should not be important if the facts match reality.

Some social scientists observed that women tend to choose lower-risk decisions compared to men that are pressured to take higher risks with immense payouts (rare) or complete disasters (frequent). So these two strategies yield different results - women have a smaller variance, i.e. there are less women at the top and less at the bottom of the society. For men, there are many more men at the top but almost the whole bottom tier consists of men.

There is also the theoretical notion of hypergamy, i.e. women never marrying anyone below them on social ladder and shooting for the top 10-20% of men, so the higher status they achieve, the lower dating pool is available to them. Complementarily, the higher status a man achieves, the bigger his dating pool becomes due to aforementioned hypergamy effect. Frankly, I am not sure how true this is but perhaps can be used as a heuristics while looking at current state of gender relations.

So the question is how to motivate women to take immense risks in order to achieve what traditionally men do and how to persuade them to date down. Any ideas?
P.S.

If you are looking for PRO version of DocShare, Try SalesHandy Document Sharing & Tracking.

This will help you send multiple files at a time under single URL.

You can track users activity on the page and get time on document data of individual pages as well.

Try it now https://www.saleshandy.com/document-tracking
Expert? No. But I did work with many industry experts while at Honda. I've heard plenty on the topic of engines/mpg.

Thanks for playing!
IRC. Many projects have something on Freenode[1] in some capacity. Additionally, there are programming channels for lots of specializations. Some channels have rules, but they are mostly about civilized conversation and RTFM kinds of things.

[1] - https://freenode.net
No, printing money (QE, inflation, what have you) is absolutely NOT a capitalist tenet. Quite the opposite.

We do not live in a true capitalist society anymore, although we still use the term, and so disparage it. Creditism would be better, since the government and federal reserve push debt/credit like its the way the world aught to work, instead of production, saving, and intelligent reinvestment.

This is what bothers me so much about the new anti-capitalist push. Sanders is right about the banks and Wall Street and the like, but he's dead wrong that capitalism is the problem. The problem is this perverse crony capitalist centrally planned insanity we've been living in.

And this is not a republican or democrat thing. Its basically just the way things have worked for a long time, highly accelerating when Nixon stuck the final nail in the gold standards coffin.
So, immigration should be open to everyone, not just preferentially for non-white people?
QE removes government bonds from circulation, replacing them with reserves which pay less interest. This forces those seeking a return on idle cash to seek alternate mattresses, of which real estate is a handy one. This leads to more real estate transactions, and thus higher prices.
A lot of this is also simply put an issue of fraudulent paper money as well. Most gas here is $2.21 per gallon. As of today. Here's the rub...
Take a pre 1965 quarter. When it was still made with silver. If you take that quarter and melt it down. That .25 has enough silver to buy a gallon gas in today's silver price. $2.25 of fake inflated printed out of thin air "money" or a quarter made of silver. If the currency today was still constitutionally backed by gold and silver you could actually live acceptably working at McDonald's. So I say a good chunk of this is the currency.