skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It's funny how everyone seems to hate "big frameworks" while at the same time complaining about how "everyone uses them". It's sort of like the Yogi Berra line: "Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded."

I for one will go against the flow (or am I with the flow?) and say that what I see coming out of Angular 2 looks FANTASTIC. Many of the things I love as a Scala developer are finally becoming mainstream on the client side. Add in the promise of NativeScript (mobile apps) and Electron (desktop apps) and this is an incredible time to be a web developer.
What would be the "killer app" for such a platform?
I picked up Angular quickly, insisted everyone in my group follow this style guide.

https://github.com/johnpapa/angular-styleguide

We didn't need an expert.
Just ask Fire Marshal Bill.
Bear in mind this is Nethack4 which is a fork of Nethack.
I truly hope that people stop misleading the mass with buzz words. We already have too many of them being used for clickbait.
I don't get why a simple client-server architecture would not suffice the "serverless". Software engineering and architecture design used to be cool in the past with useful design patterns. Now it's full of tricks/buzz words that promise the users of silver bullets that help them to manage code and servers. In reality, no such silver bullet exist and such tricks/architecture fail every day. I've noticed that martinfowler.com is one such place that seems to provide such empty promise of a silver bullet!
There was a consumer product. They performed thousands of blood tests, which were available in Palo Alto and Arizona.

But it's false that companies that don't have a consumer product don't draw intense interest. Ask Enron. Or WorldCom. Or Blackwater. Or Lehman Brothers. Or the folks behind the AOL and Time Warner merger
I believe it is centralised, as I'm pretty sure the same Pokemon can appear on multiple players' devices in the same location.

See here for consequences:
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Pokemon-Go-Players-Stam...
Apple, of course. It's probably the biggest turn-around story of our time.
Science is well defined.

Oh, so when science is defined in the way Popper defines it, it is "arbitrary confines", but when it is defined in a way to legitimize cargo cult science, it is "well defined".
Google gave a good overview of the screening they perform for extensions in a paper at usenix security last year: https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity15/technical...

Basically, at their scale it's a hard problem, especially if you need to redo your analysis after every update to an extension and you can't afford a high false positive rate.
I don't plug my USB devices into strange USB ports (because I don't own a USB condom):

See: http://krebsonsecurity.com/2011/08/beware-of-juice-jacking/
I think HN should bare some if not all of that comment.

People didn't have to comment this way, but they chose to.

Society are not idiots. No people would not report you for doing this, no more than people might murder you. Yes it could happen but it won't.
I don't think it's sleazy, while Mozilla does review all add-ons, it's hard to restrict what an extension right now since they can access internal APIs and there isn't really a permission system to speak of.

Additionally, JS is a dynamic language so it's difficult to provide adequate automated scanning for malicious intent. Even so, extension authors can be quite clever in how they hide malicious behavior, especially if there's financial reward involved.

WebExtensions (https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebExtensions) add a permission system, have a much smaller attack surface, and should help to alleviate this problem. This combined with automated scanning + human review and

For Chrome, I think Google prefers a combination of automated scanning and quick response, without upfront human review (based on https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.c...)
...which are still there only to make you pay for proprietary headphones.
I personally love it. I've only written a couple of small, really simple apps, but I've got a couple more under way. To me, the idea of writing desktop, native apps, utilizing the web development technologies I already know, is bad ASS. the sizes are on the high side for some things, sure, but that's not really a HUGE deal breaker for me.
If a constructor can fail, don't make that constructor public. Instead, add a trivial constructor to allocate an empty instance of the object, then make your possibly-failing constructor a factory function that takes whatever arguments you would pass to the constructor and returns an error code. The object being "constructed" should then be passed by reference as one of the arguments to the factory function and filled in. (If you're writing this in Rust, you have better options, since you can explicitly take ownership of some of the factory function arguments and avoid the need to allocate a trivial instance of the object by returning it as one of the variants of the sum type Result<T, E>.)

Note: I don't actually know C++ very well. It's possible there's a more idiomatic way to accomplish this. In particular, another wrapper class could be created that owns an instance of the trivially-constructed instance mentioned above. The factory function could then take an instance of the wrapper class and then modify and return an instance of the class you actually want to obtain.
First off, the Pokemon aren't only catchable by one person in a given location. Anyone with the app open can catch the Pokemon, so there is no exclusivity to having one appear on your property.

Secondly, if our universe is a simulation, do you really own the land you claim to?
Neither of which are software companies. That is to say they offer hardware and services.
I'd like to see a woman hired as CEO for whom the principle talking point isn't that she's female.

I don't fucking care.

Be competent. Be a decent person.

Meg Whitman is a horrible person from everything I've seen. She's managed not to kill what's left with HP after Carly Fiorina drove it into the ground.

I meant to search for "most notable (female|woman) tech ceo", but left out the gender qualification.

A top 10 list fails to include any women:

http://mashable.com/2014/03/21/top-tech-ceos/#WNfESM0rbqqN

A list of 13 likewise:

http://www.businessinsider.com/13-most-popular-tech-company-...

A slideshow item I refuse to link on principle lists Alibaba, HP, Oracle (co-CEO), IBM, Xerox, Yahoo, YouTube, and ... um, one other I've now forgotten, fuck the slideshow very much. Oh, AMD. None of which are startups.

Women hold 23 CEO positions (4.3%) of the S&P 500, four of which I've already mentioned:

http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/women-ceos-sp-500

http://www.businessinsider.com/13-most-popular-tech-company-...
Excercising an option is taxable under the AMT.
I'm pretty sure this has been abandoned. Hasn't had any updates in a really long time. "Latest commit bc97a26 on 12 Oct 2015".

One of the contributors recently wrote: maximk commented on 25 May "All recent updates to the code were customer-driven. New users mean new updates. The likely application area for this is NFV, modular software for telecoms. No definite plans"

https://github.com/cloudozer/ling
It may make no sense, but the IRS disagrees with you. Exercising is a taxable event.
Still rocking paint like it's 1995 - Bloomberg

The color choice is just yikes!

Did anyone else get reminded of Futurama - Law and Oracle (S06E16 / E104)?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_and_Oracle

I do wonder if this type of technology is something we should slowly approach due to the very nature of the outcome of sentencing. We already incarcerate a lot of innocent people and I truly wonder if this is something we should tread lightly on.
Apple turned around by moving much more heavily into consumer hardware, specifically the iPod and then the iPhone and iPad. It was not really a software turnaround, though that was a smaller part of it.
I'm afraid I don't think you are understanding my point, but apparently it is a difficult one to make.

I'm unfortunately too busy to make it clearer, so I will just leave you with a koan.

Why not include a third order term in the regression? What about an n-th order term? What assumptions do we "bake into" the results of a statistical regression as an effect of including, or not, any function on the original data?

The statistical significance of the quadratic term is actually dependent upon the presence of any more complex or higher order terms in the regression, just as the coefficients and the statistics of the linear term will depend on the presence of the second order term in the analysis.

I'm not saying you should never include a quadratic term in a regression, I'm saying we should understand what the regression is doing when it is fitting a model.
The voltage is less important than the amperage with something like this, but that fact only further emphasizes your point, there's literally zero risk of the paper catching fire.
Given that a man was taken off a flight for doing Algebra, I set a low bar for how paranoid some passengers are.
Manning once offered me the co-authorship of Hello Python for 5% royalties and (unspecified, possibly 0) advance. To collaborate with an Australian co-author in an Australian timezone. I declined. Figured if I wanted to write a Python book I could do it for sole authorship, at time and pace most convenient to me, for 100% ownership, 80-95% royalty, most format freedom, etc. with the biggest loss being less marketing power. To this day, not sure if I made the right choice or wrong choice. But declining appeared right at the time.
Hardware.
In fact, I think managing this extra state, also dealing with complications that could arise from object slicing, were the major reasons given when Martin Sústrik argued he should have originally started out with ZeroMQ in C and not in C++.

< http://250bpm.com/blog:4 >
Thanks. Some show up as flagged, some show up as dead, but lots of live stories in between. I'm more interested in the ones where they had lots of votes in a short time but didn't make it past the flag process.
Haha!

Terry Semel is where the "Yahoo is a media company" thing began.

http://www.zdnet.com/article/can-terry-semel-yahoo/
http://www.wired.com/2007/02/yahoo-3/

I'm still puzzled by Yahoo's hiring Semel, more than any other executive mentioned in this thread. (e.g. hiring Fiorina for HP made sense at the time).
pgbovine's profile is not as high as it deserves to be

See http://pythontutor.com/ and http://www.pgbovine.net/cde.html - but really, all of https://github.com/pgbovine?tab=repositories is worth looking at.
Not sure if gloating or apologising?
It's not so much a change in technology as it is a shift in focus.

If you or your company needs a basic website, then wordpress will almost always take you as far as you need to go. There's not a huge need for devs and nobody who's good at the web wants to be there because it's a race to the bottom financially. That part of the web (the overwhelming majority I might add) is pretty stagnant with few real changes or advancements having happened in the past decade.

Apps failed in that nobody wants to install your app on their device unless it's a game, a free utility, or one of a few popular apps made by large companies. WebOS got the idea of web technologies right, but the devices were too limited. Today, the idea of a web app that runs everywhere is very appealing and much more accessible to clients. All the new frameworks are really targeting this kind of use. Pounding the square that is web apps through the round hole that is the browser is hard, but still better than the alternatives.

If you're making a website, jQuery and simple JS is usually all you need. If you're making a web app with complex data and complex UI, you need a framework to keep things sane.
> but it is not the only way to produce knowledge that is reliable.

Yeah, as evidenced by

http://www.nature.com/news/over-half-of-psychology-studies-f...

Indeed! Just look at the puny and half-wrong progress made in physics and compare it to the enormous progress made in astrology and psychology which transformed our lives and understanding of everything!

I mean, they've been at it for hundreds of years, and they still haven't realized that "it is not the only way to produce knowledge that is reliable" (never mind what "reliable" means, who cares about such details anyway). Wish they were also blessed with magic ball.

And hey! They've been sucking our tax money like vampires for so many years!
> I cannot imagine in what world an optimized AMD SPIR-V compiler that AMD already needs to write for the desktop and mobile won't beat 99% of developers on both the Sony / MS / Nintendo and 3rd party sides trying to microoptimize RadeonSI ASM.

Good point. Today not to provide Vulkan on consoles is a political diversion (to make cross platform development more costly by taxing developers with doing the same thing multiple times).
Flipkart has had this coming. They grew too confident, even to the extent of making significantly anti customer moves. Whereas amazon make you feel like you are the center of the universe.

Another problem is that amazon's retail business is not a big earner, even after so many years. But all flipkart has is retail. They don't have the technical superiority to do something like aws.

Think about it. Flipkart offices are some of the best places to work. They hire the smartest, pay a lot and there's a lot of autonomy at work. But u didn't make sense for maintaining a website. A small team of IT guys can do that. They are competing in retail, where other stuff like logistics and partnerships and marketing matter. Not the design of the website. What are all those software engineers doing? They're definitely not building an aws. They're just maintaining the website.
There are very few pure-play software companies.

Microsoft is simply alone in its class as a large, pure-play, shrinkwrap software company. Adobe might come close.

IBM, Oracle, SAS, PWC, Deloitte, McKinsey, PeopleSoft, and many other firms bundled software with at the very least consulting services. IBM, along with Sun, HP, Digital, and other vendors sold (or leased) both hardware and software, along with consulting services.

Smaller software companies have existed, but have been notoriously fickle.

Novell existed as a network services company, doing well for a while, but ultimately faltering.

EDS is probably the closest thing to a precursor to today's SaaS / XaaS companies, and was ultimately in the services business and bought by HP IIRC.

I've been looking at this question for nearly two decades, and the most substantive conclusion I've come to was that Microsoft was a unicorn, a lone star, a singleton. And yet everyone's tried to emulated them. Or at least did until Google came along and cracked a different market.
You have a point, but it operates under the assumption that there is an interest in disproving a role her gender had in the attention. An assumption I can't empirically prove, nor one you can empirically prove.

I would like to think the blood test product scandal was interesting on its own merits, amongst all of the other frauds going on in this country, but I don't think it really was elevated to the collective conscious because of that.

Holmes represents something inspirational to a marginalized demographic.
I would still point out that that article focuses on bringing everything into the small. Redefine problems so you're not tackling large monstrosities, but simplified versions. Make it so that it neatly fits in little bits of code that directly computes simple things.

That's all well and good, but some people are building web browsers, or distributed AI databases, or even large chip development suites that do things that certainly wouldn't fit in 500 lines of Forth. Forth is a great expression evaluator, and has actual compile-time metaprogramming features, which is nice. But it doesn't solve actual large problems for you. It asks you if you can solve a non-large problem, and if you can, you're happy with Forth.

It's sort of like retro programming. You can work in a small (architecturally conceptual) scope that handles a few things elegantly, and implement some cool project within those constraints and building blocks. But it's still building a little cathedral per project.
That's only for ISOs, which are essentially deferred compensation. Getting paid in ISOs is functionally equivalent to taking an 83(b) election in that you're trading a risk of potential loss for the upside of only needing to pay long term capital gains tax.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/rampage/wp/2016/05/07/iv...
If you want persistence across devices then you need the cloud. If you don't want to run a bouncer yourself use irccloud or similar services
1,700,000 SAT takers -> 17,000 people in the top 1%.

Selecting the top 10% of those gets you 1700 students, which is quite close to the size of Harvard's acceptance statistic (of 2000)
It looks like the chinese were inspired by the CIA's use of 'rendition' to disappear people under extrajudicial pretense. Although I don't see the difference between China doing it in Hong Kong and the US doing it in Italy: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/world/europe/05italy.html

Italy is (and was) most certainly an 'allied' country to the US and it didn't stop them either.
No, but software companies of Yahoo's scale are either established within the past 20 years or Microsoft. That doesn't give a lot of time for things to go great, then get well and truly fucked, and then come back from the brink.
> You can't have less/more reliable knowledge. Science can't be half-wrong and half-right.

I wasn't trolling, but I think you might be?

Of course science can be more/less reliable or half-wrong/half-right. The truth isn't binary, it's closer to fuzzy logic sets.

And as much as you would like to call the "soft" sciences pseudosceince, you are doing yourself a disservice. In reality, your attitude suggests that you are closer to a pseudoscientist than the "soft" scientists you are so eager to dismiss. Narrow-mindedness like you are epsousing is the reason why science is in the dumps.
There is code that pushes the boundaries of the human mind, complex systems that cannot have any additional complexity if they are to succeed.

And there's other code that pushes against physical or economic limits: processor speed, memory available, network latency. In those systems, writing in an inefficient, high level language is just as wrong as writing the first type of code in a low level one.

Fast, complex, difficult to fully verify code is not bad coding practice any more than a rocket is a worse vehicle than a Volvo because it explodes more. Volvos can't go to space.
I think we'd all love to see the day when a woman reaching the position of Fortune 500 isn't news. As much as we might argue how much of Mayer's meteoric rise was because of her being a woman, I think it's outweighed by the fact that when she fucks up, she has to bear the burden of being the latest face of female inferiority.
This literally reminds me of a quote from Hot Fuzz. Alas I cannot find it on YouTube.
I think Intel is mostly hardware and IBM is mostly consulting?
I don't think it's a secret that Google's C++ code base (very large and growing) does not use exceptions. And since starting there I have not missed them. Exceptions make execution flow hard to reason about. And RAII is most certainly still a thing without exceptions. There's lots of other ways to unwind the stack.
Arbitrary confines of science is when you limit science to the scientific method. Well-defined science is frankly an insult to science
There is the "Workstation in a Mouse"

http://www.ultratechnology.com/scope.htm

Bit of a toy demo though since it only ran a single fake program.

A chess game: http://www.ultratechnology.com/chess.html

The largest serious suite I know of is a VLSI CAD/simulator for silicon chip design:

http://www.ultratechnology.com/okad.htm

http://www.ultratechnology.com/okad2.htm

Pictures of it in action: http://www.ultratechnology.com/tape1-2.htm
I think this is arguing semantics. Yes, the methods and models of physics and psychology are different, but they both are trying to explain natural phenomena in a scientific way, that is, through hypothesis and experiment. The cargo cult analogy may have been apt at the time (1974), but psychology is completely different today. For an example, look at what we now know about visual perception, which goes well beyond a characterization as "stamp collecting".
That is a good point. Google is also a hardware company, they just didn't sell any of it until recently (App Engine/Cloud).
>Risk scores, generated by algorithms, are an increasingly common factor in sentencing. Computers crunch data—arrests, type of crime committed, and demographic information—and a risk rating is generated. The idea is to create a guide that’s less likely to be subject to unconscious biases, the mood of a judge, or other human shortcomings. Similar tools are used to decide which blocks police officers should patrol, where to put inmates in prison, and who to let out on parole.

So, eventually a robot police officer will arrest someone for having the wrong profile.

>Berk wants to predict at the moment of birth whether people will commit a crime by their 18th birthday, based on factors such as environment and the history of a new child’s parents. This would be almost impossible in the U.S., given that much of a person’s biographical information is spread out across many agencies and subject to many restrictions. He’s not sure if it’s possible in Norway, either, and he acknowledges he also hasn’t completely thought through how best to use such information.

So, we're not sure how dangerous this will be, or how Minority Report thoughtcrime will work, but we're damned sure we want it, because it's the future and careers will be made?

This is a very scary trend in the U.S. Eventually, if you're born poor/bad childhood, you will have even less of a chance of making it.
The language 'accident' doesn't mean nobody is at fault - it just means that the crash wasn't intentional.

Since most of the time someone isn't slamming into somebody on purpose this argument to say crash instead always struck me as wrong in addition to being frivolous. If you're going to be pedantic, at least be correct.
If your securities are not publicly traded there is no legal way to sell options on them. About the closest you could come would be some sort of proposition bet which is illegal in pretty much every state of the USA. And as I mentioned before, at the end of the day your "stock" in a privately funded company, is simply a ledger entry on a spreadsheet somewhere. And without the active participation of the CFO/Controller/accountant/and-or/Counsel there is no way to durably transfer ownership to anyone.

That said, I don't doubt that you might find someone with excess cash who would be willing to front you the money to exercise your stock and pay the taxes and a perhaps a premium on the stock, for a promissory note to hand them over the stock at the time it becomes publicly traded. That too it illegal under securities law but would be fairly difficult to prosecute.
Newsflash: Time May Not Exist (2007)
Five Principles of Urban Economics (2013)
"Yahoo"... The brand is the problem. It sounds like a good name for a personal website in 1998 (with 85 gifs and a turquoise background).