skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The feature you really want for web-development is closures. I can't imagine writing event-handling code without them. As far as I know, Pascal does not have closures.

Unfortunately, with closures you need good memory handling. And this means either a complicated type-system such as Rust's, or a garbage collected environment. The way C++ does closures is too dangerous for event-driven code, imho.
A redis client. It's interesting and not complex(less than 200 lines of code).
> being able to prove things about some beautiful intricate mathematical structure most of the times doesn't help you much with the world of matter.

How about discovering a flaw in human crypto systems?

> Super-intelligence won't help you with stock market because it's purely random game.

Humans can't reliably exploit the stock market, because we're competing against other humans. It's not that there are no patterns, it's that as soon as someone discovers a pattern, people rush to exploit it and then it's tapped out. Imagine you were the first human stock trader to think of "buy stocks in companies when their product announcements get featured in newspapers"; and imagine that however much you tried to explain your strategy to the other stock traders, they just didn't get it. You wouldn't always pick a winner, but you'd make a lot of money.

How confident are you that AI won't be able to find something like that?
And has it been positive in practice so far?
Argument from authority is "X is true because Y says it is".

That's not what I claimed.

This is tedious.
Map of scientific collaboration (2014)
Shanghai Hacker News Meetup – July 7 @ Daga Brewpub
We need a transparency extension, one that provides a report each day detailing what, of yours, was sent to who by what extension.

*edit: spelling mistakes
She can't. No one can. But she could have diffused the uncertainty by reassuring the many EU citizens in the UK and the many British citizens living in the EU that, of course, the government would seek a deal which protected their status.
Now I am curious about the jobs you offer :)
A scheme which rarely (if at all) works. Usually cutting taxes means cutting revenue.
>> Edelman said that people tend to trust businesses more than governments, in part because “business gets stuff done” while government is seen as “incapable.” People trust technology companies in particular because “they deliver value.” <<

UK Brexit vote: most (not all) business leaders were advising a remain vote. Apart from the 'immigration' trigger, the 'take back control' trigger does come up in my conversations with those who voted leave.

The Labour party spokesbeing on the radio this morning was developing a vaguely anti-globalist line about spreading the fruits of recovery more evenly and defending social spending. We shall see.
MS DOS 1.x assembly source: the modest beginnings of an empire
Assuming you're in the US, you could look here: http://www.bls.gov/data/#prices

More information here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_price_index), including info about the appropriate US index to use.
"Lower the taxes of businesses so that they can invest" - That's been the theory behind decades of such experiments in many countries. Worked out great, we all can see how the money keep s"trickling down".

That theory is actually very un-capitalistic: It assumes that only a few people know what is best for the majority. Because it's built into the system (and with a certain perverse logic, not at all irrational of course) that those who've had success are more likely to know how to have more of it.

So the system is actually incredibly anti-risk with money - in an age when "money" surely is not a limiting factor. Not overall - it is because a few have so much they don't find good investment opportunities (when you have billions, only hundreds of millions of opportunity at once make sense to even look at), but for the vast rest of us it is.

So it becomes a tautology: The system is set up to make it far more likely that the successful succeed more, and that is then used as justification for itself, "see, it's too risky to give resources to the inexperienced, data prove it". So we get ever more concentration of control ("money", "power" are indirect terms, "control" is what it comes down to. Th eproblem of the 0.01% isn't their jets, their yachts, their mansions, it is their control of too much of economic life at the expense of most everyone else.): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM
The API break of Gnome 2 to Gnome 3 and KDE 3 to KDE 4 etc. are just more commonly known than those of some small library.
So it is just a good example.
So the fight has started! Interesting to see how Ireland is going to react. And then what effect will this have on the negotiations?

On second thought - this is probably not a fight. This is probably not even a plan. This is the result of not having any plans, no vision, except for letting the market dictate what to do. Do they want a healthy relation with the EU? I guess not!
A major system like that can't shift very often because if it changes even slightly it brings down a proverbial house of cards built on top of it.

Little inconsequential libraries can move fast and break things, though there's a peculiar paradox here. As the number of dependencies grows, the tolerance for change decreases, yet in terms of perception, little libraries that aren't major dependencies that change frequently look untrustworthy and are liable to never be trusted because of their flux.

That is, if you want to be successful, be predictable and consistent even if that means being leaving some potential unrealized.
What I mean is that in addition to rules of the language I program in (say C or C++) there is another bunch of seemingly arbitrary rules that I must constantly be aware of to ensure nothing breaks. Rules like "don't reorder fields of structs" or "you can add new methods to a class as long as they are not virtual. and sometimes you can add virtual methods too as long as they end up at the end of vtable".

How do I ensure that I conform to these rules apart from being disciplined about them? If everything compiles, am I good? No! If everything links, am I good? No! Depending on linker options and the nature of incompatibility the program using incompatible ABIs can blow up at runtime or just silently corrupt data.

And don't get me started on the venerable "pimpl idiom". A page of boilerplate just to ensure the most basic thing.

Hope that clarifies my short sentiment a bit :) I agree that once you grasp the rules following them is not that hard but it is just another bit of incidental complexity that we agreed to maintain.
Is it that verbose, though? I have a hard time seeing how it could be made any shorter in other languages, without sacrificing functionality.

EDIT: I think what gives the code its length here is the explicit error handling. If you do the same in Python you'll end up with the same amount of code. In Rust, you could unwrap() everything and lose nice error messages and probably slash the LOC in half.
Google killed that.

(Reader)

Though alternatives exist.
CoreCLR – Working through things on other OSs
The machine was future e-waste since it was produced. That is a sunken environmental cost and shouldn't figure into the equation of whether it is useful to prolong its life. There is a running environmental impact related to power usage. This is the one that you need to offset with gained utility.
But perhaps the most important decision: at this point you are in control of the end-of-life handling. You can opt for the most responsible process. Once you donate or sell the machine, you have no control, and the further down it goes the more chance it will end up in an illegal landfill, or in a Chinese toxic child-labour scavenging yard.
In my opinion this is the inevitable political crisis that unrestrained neoliberalism has lead us to. [ https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/31/witnes... ]

I'd say this is the end of the ideology but I'm too much of a realist and I expect the powers that be to now double down on it and then try and profit from it all going up in flames.

(But please don't assume I am some kind of socialist/anti-capitalist. Capitalism operates quite well in a fair and open market with a strong rule of law. But Neoliberalism is not this. Neoliberalism is destroying public institutions and utilities through financial plunder and then selling the organisation whole-sale and off market at bargain basement prices to the corrupt politician's corrupt mate in the private sector who then goes and cuts services, jacks prices, and gouges the captive public with their new found monopoly, then back channels the money through the lobbyists to the political party that enabled it, and calls it progress... and then the people cheer that the institution is 'profitable' again)

[Edit: sorry. this rant is a little off topic...]
No. The answer is to kick the TSA out.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2016/0514/Is-Phoenix...
Show HN: Language in Motion – Learn Japanese with classic Japanese short stories
Add to that the mental burnout of having to violate the natural project hopping progression.

The job does not care that you won't be able to get interested in their stuff for unknown amount of months. It must be done, and now.

Reading these stories - do people actually get paid more for doing more over there?

Here it's a fixed monthly salary, regardless of how much you do (as long as the deadlines are met).
10% of GDP, IIRC, which is more than the NHS and for worse outcomes. If anything, the Irish system is more complex because of the legacy of being formerly Church-dominated and decades of half-hearted reforms. There's a reason why the Irish health system has long been nicknamed 'Angola'.
What color is your function?
I see it as the perfect storm, trust collapse is causing apathy, not desire to reform.

when they say government is migrating toward a gerontocracy is not just because politician are from the older classes, but also because younger participate less in the democratic debate, whether in the first line or by voting.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/35/Uk_general_el...

https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pict...
It's a very serious issue. I feel like it's been going on with Google for a long while now. I'm 41 now and maybe I'm getting a bit jaded but I find it also curious how there is supposedly so many resources and websites out there and yet I feel like I discover less and less of them.

It's true that it is in our nature like KaiserPro said, but I think in the early days of Google, you'd find out so much more diversity of content because websites both small and big were all appearing in search results.

Which makes me realize... in fact it is the content farms which are part of the problem. They forced search engines to filter more and more of the content in order to provide quality results.. we end up with a minority of high traffic sites and the rest of the voices are difficult to find outside of news aggregators.
At one point, German was the language of science, however.
Probably [OT] in the original title means "off topic" but I don't know why we should care about this here.
Related, but Nissan have been running the GT Academy which takes online racers and turns them into real ones https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GT_Academy - the first winner of GT Academy in 2008 competed in the 2011 LeMans 24 in the LMP2 class, and finished 2nd in class
>You're saying they shouldn't? Seems a fairly straightforward strategy: by calling them out on it, they either force the UK to step up and invoke article 50 or to have their bluff called out. Both outcomes weaken the UK's ability to negotiate and remove the threat of leaving from the table as a weapon the UK could use.

Which would make sense if it was the EU's primary intention is to punish the UK for having the audacity to leave.

>In other words, they have very little, if anything, to gain by negotiating anything before the UK makes a move.

By being up front about precisely what an exit will entail it will reduce uncertainty about the outcome for everybody. That's a strong benefit.

If EU wants to be vindictive it can try but it probably will be economically damaging (both to the UK and the EU). That will only serve to give Farage-equivalent politicians in the EU enough ammunition to call for their own referendums and before you know it the EU is no more.

Edit: disagree by all means but please disagree with something I actually said rather than some crazy thing the leave campaign came up with or some rubbish you "implied" from what I said that I clearly didn't.
This just the masses realising that they have been decapitated. In all western countries the intelligent are identified at a young age and brought into the ruling class via education. There is no one left to speak for the interests of the bottom 90% nor formulate a plan to change the status quo. Faced with this it is not surprising that the masses get restless and thrash out at any symbol of authority no matter the consequences to themselves.
I understand what you're saying but I think it's bad to use the term 'economic' growth. There would be potential productivity growth but not necessarily economic growth, since the economy is a human endeavour. AIs don't need money and won't contribute to money, and the machines would only be 'allowed' to produce what the customers would be able to buy (so essentially the current economy), unless they would produce lots of extra stuff just for the hell of it.

To have all that growth I think you'd need to decouple the machines from the economy but then distributing natural resources would be a problem, and then you come back to central planning and that's a whole other can of worms.
Top pandas, numpy and scipy functions and modules used in GitHub repos
> Take "throwing star" versus "shuriken", or "raw seafood" against "sushi." Does English have words for those objects or concepts?

Um, yes. It has the words "shuriken" and "sushi". We didn't invent those words, but we found them useful, so we kept them.

Presumably, if the cultures that used lots of shuriken and ate lots of sushi had been English-speaking, they would still have invented words for them.
The latest plan seems to be to cut corporate taxes to try to stop the larger companies from leaving the UK, and possibly to attract new ones.

The race to the bottom started with Ireland, suggestions are to cut the tax to 15% in the rest of the UK, with some voices pushing for 10% or even 5% corporate tax. Of course this has nothing to do with using the opportunity created by the brexit power vacuum to reward some special interests.
I watched this series, seemed boring at first but really it is crazy what this machine does (with 19th century tech)

Definitely recommend this series (and the other videos)
It's just a very loose signal to business that they shouldn't rush out the door, the UK might be anti-EU but it isn't anti-business. Note there was no mention of a date.

Theresa May isn't the prime minister yet, nor head of her party. Article 50 hasn't been called, negotiations haven't started.

I think it's a bit early to start feeling ashamed.
LatLng 0,0 shows 194 jobs, most for Sydney CBD and some for other positions (remote, perth and so on).
I'm on windows 10 with a shitty "optimus" enabled laptop. The NVidia drivers routinely crash (typically when viewing a heavy webGL enabled page) and windows 10 just flashes at me and throws up a notification saying my graphics drivers have crashed but it helpfully restarted the drivers for me.

Perhaps you have a different issue? Maybe a hardware failure? Windows 10 should not be BSODing for a graphics driver failure
15% is quite low. it brings them to tax-haven territory. That will show the corporate elites running the EU! /s

But don't forget there are countries with lower taxation in the EU (10% in bulgaria). UK can do better!
I think it's a great move and I would love to see it go further.

I take your point on asking whether Britain can afford to cut taxes but I reckon it will be funded by removing pension tax relief: It costs around £34 billion per year [1]. By this, I mean that the treasury loses out on £34 billion a year.

The solution will be to tax income as normal, no pension tax relief but to allow zero tax on the pension drawdown at the other end.

From the current chancellors point of view it's a win-win: He gets an additional £34 billion a year and the problem of zero tax at retirement age becomes someone elses issue.

[1] - https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm...
Notice that uncertainty is being stirred up by an opposition politician from Scotland, expect a lot of this until the whole thing has been resolved.
> Ireland does not have complex public health service like the NHS.

Where exactly did you get that idea? As bbrazil wrote, that's certainly not the case. We also spend more on healthcare per head here in Ireland than is spent in the UK. We have one of the highest spends in the OECD and a complex legacy of the pre-independence healthcare system plastered over almost a century of half-hearted reforms to deal with.

People in Ireland envy the NHS for three reasons: compared to the Irish 'system', it's cheap and relatively simple, and the outcomes are better than our more expensive hodge-podge.
Evolution doesn't care about arbitrary categories like "species". Species aren't even a thing, they're an abstraction.
How is calling an opinion moronic uncivil?
>Language doesn't dictate patterns of thought, but it certainly shapes them.

What you're talking about is the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, and it is not certain at all. It's highly contested. Language may have an effect on some cognitive processes (again, contested) but definitely not all.

However, language does reflect the cumulative experience of a culture, whether modern speakers are aware of that experience or not. Here's a good illustration: http://youtu.be/kIzFz9T5rhI

So language can reflect a culture, but it probably doesn't dictate it. In the case of the Mongolian girl, she's unlikely to be a nomad these days, and what separates an English speaking Mongolian from a non-English speaking one is usually wealth. So, someone from a wealthy country is probably more culturally similar to her than they might expect.
This one seems promising and already has a product on the market:

http://www.curodont.com/en/

Description of their technology:

http://www.curodont.com/en/curolox-technology/
The Dedibox Classic 2016 is here  2x250GB SSDs, 32 GB RAM and much more
Yes, all of that is more or less idiomatic Rust.

The first section of code you mention is using what's referred to as the "builder pattern" in Rust, where you have a dedicated type that chains method calls to mutably construct an object which is produced at the end. You're not alone in thinking this pattern is ugly and verbose (though I've grown to like it, personally.) There is a lot of discussion[1] about providing a terser approach via keyword arguments, but nothing concrete is planned at this point.

The second section of code you mention is a match statement (essentially a fancy, type-based switch statement) that inspects the arguments presented to Ruma from the command line and dispatches to the appropriate code. This supports two subcommands currently, `run` and `secret`, which are the two arms of the match. The `run` arm loads the user's configuration from the configuration file into a Rust structure, then starts the web server, which blocks the process until it is killed, reporting any errors that occurred along the way. Rust is very explicit about code paths that are optional or may produce errors, so you often see the "some" and "none" (or "ok" and "error") cases handled explictly in code, which will certainly look verbose coming from languages like Python. I came from Ruby, myself, and what I've learned is that the places where Rust feels weighty are almost always making me accountable in places where I would've otherwise left a corner case unhandled or introduced a bug in a Ruby program. There are some constructs in the language to make handling optional and error cases a little less verbose (e.g. `unwrap_or`, `try!`, etc.) but in many cases I prefer the longer form for simplicity.

[1] https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/issues/323
That is a stronger opinion. I agree with you but I am offering a logical framework that will agree with more people.
They should lower the tax rate for corporations to 0%. Because if corporations don't pay taxes politics doesn't need to care about them so much.

"He who doesn't pay the piper doesn't call the tune."
If it was that high I would shut down my business, why bother if there is no reward?
Yes it was in some fields and still is to a certain extent in organic chemistry. The only language today other than English where a reasonable amount of new scientific knowledge is published is Chinese, but even in China there is a strong desire to publish in English if you are a scientist.
> Which would make sense if it was the EU's primary intention is to punish the UK for having the audacity to leave.

No, why they have to start negotiations if there is no change in the status quo.

> If EU wants to be vindictive it can try but it probably will be economically damaging (both to the UK and the EU). That will only serve to give Farage-equivalent politicians in the EU enough ammunition to call for their own referendums and before you know it the EU is no more.

How it is vindictive? Should the EU give the same deal the UK has right now?

It seems that for some of you, not giving to UK all they ask is being vindictive.
I'm guessing you mean Nicola Sturgeon the Scottish First Minister?
But that's exactly what she did say - she said she'd do everything she could to protect them but couldn't guarantee it.
There's a shocking level of economic illiteracy in the above comment ^^^

A) Corporations that don't like paying UK corporation taxes (like Google and Facebook) already try to evade by declaring their income in Ireland. Except that doesn't work when it's plainly false as demonstrated when HMRC recognized this. If HMRC chose it could rake in even more via fines from Google (weird that they didn't).

B) Big shareholders and large corporations suffer the most from high corporate taxes since they earn the most in dividends.

C) The tax incidence of corporate taxes falls on big shareholders. At a time when corporate profits and inequality are at all time highs the space to squeeze shareholders has never actually been greater.

This is just cynical opportunism by Osborne. He sees a way to reward his friends and he's taking it.
I think you are talking about compatibility in general (which is great to have!) but not about ABI compatibility. Nothing apart from cultural conventions prevents maintainer of a ruby gem from strictly adhering to semver or maintainer of a C library from breaking everything in a minor version release.
What's the upside for investing a pension versus an ISA then?
Location: London, United Kingdom

Remote: No

Willing to relocate: Yes (Berlin, Germany or USA)

Technologies:
HTML & CSS, Javascript, JQuery, MEAN Stack, AJAX, Ruby & Ruby on Rails, postgreSQL, APIs, Version Control with Git and Github, TDD

Résumé/CV: https://uk.linkedin.com/in/tracywu2

Github: https://github.com/trcywu

Email: sytracywu@gmail.com
Agreed.

Corporations don't pay corporation tax anyway: People do.

As an example, if suddenly corp tax jumped by 20%, prices would jump by 20% to cover it so customers must pay an additional 20% for the product.
I think most of the issues you listed are quite easy to check automatically. For example http://ispras.linuxbase.org/index.php/ABI_compliance_checker or anything in the "similar software" section.

Of course it won't save you from business logic bugs (changing the meaning, but not size/location of a value), but "how do I ensure that I conform" is 90+% possible to verify automatically.