skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
More on this here: https://medium.com/@sargun/a-critique-of-network-design-ff85... -- BGP isn't just about containers. It's about signaling. It's a mechanism for machines to influence the flow of traffic in the network.

This isn't container weirdness. This is because networks got stuck in 2008. We still don't have have IPv6 SLAAC. Many of us made the jump to layer 3 clos fabrics, but stopped after that. My belief is because AWS EC2, Google GCE, Azure Compute, and others consider this the gold standard.

IPv6 natively supports autoconfiguring multiple IPs per NIC / machine automagically*. This is usually on by default as part of the privacy extensions, so in conjunction with SLAAC, you can cycle through IPs quickly. It also makes multi-endpoint protocols relevant.

Containers and bad networking because of the lack of IP / container is a well-known problem, it's even touched on in the Borg paper, briefly:
One IP address per machine complicates things. In
Borg, all tasks on a machine use the single IP address of
their host, and thus share the host’s port space. This causes
a number of difficulties: Borg must schedule ports as a resource; tasks must pre-declare how many ports they need,
and be willing to be told which ones to use when they start;
the Borglet must enforce port isolation; and the naming and
RPC systems must handle ports as well as IP addresses.

Thanks to the advent of Linux namespaces, VMs, IPv6,
and software-defined networking, Kubernetes can take a
more user-friendly approach that eliminates these complications: every pod and service gets its own IP address, allowing developers to choose ports rather than requiring their software to adapt to the ones chosen by the infrastructure, and removes the infrastructure complexity of managing ports.

But, I ask, what's wrong with the Docker approach of rewriting ports? Reachability is our primary concern, and I'm unfortunately BGP hasn't become the lingua franca for most networks ("The Cloud"). I actually think ILA (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-herbert-nvo3-ila-00#sectio...) / ILNP (RFC6741) are the most interesting approaches here.
> Too many of the Ethereum devs had way too much of their currency tied up in the DAO.

Do you have any evidence of that? I know about the address that was found in both the Foundation wallet and as a DAO holder but I haven't seen any other developer shown to be DAO holders. Stephan Taul would obviously be a big DAO holder as one of the people behind it but he's not with the Ethereum Foundation anymore (having left to work on Slock.it and The DAO).

Even if they have a conflict of interest they seem to be going out of their way to let the community decide what to do.
Ok. The bay area comment wasn't the only inflammatory hyberbole I wrote so I will gladly concede that I wrote something incongruent with all perspectives.

Alright?
>To my knowledge inflammation comes from lack of water, bad food (red meat) and bad posture.

I've been researching this for a bit and seems like chronic tendon injuries show no sign of inflammation.

http://www.aafp.org/afp/2013/0401/p486.html
If you pay for a 2 bedroom apartment, transportation, food

The price of a two bedroom apartment in SF will get you a 3,000 sq ft house with a quarter acre of land elsewhere.
What kind of reply did you expect with this insult? ;-)

You can either argue with me based on facts or at least come up with some thoughtful insights but not with "I'm loosing faith in humanity".
Does anybody know here when people started to think of their home as an "investment"? I mean, regular people, if that makes sense, ordinary families and such.

I feel like it requires somewhat of an intellectual leap to see home ownership as a form of investment.
well but the author is a Nobel Prize winner and you're not ..so ...umm.. .counter evidence be damned
If you still trust doctors, you must be healthy ... once you start to have problems, especially the chronic kind, you will see that doctors don't know much and are just big pharma salesmen.
okay, that's reassuring, thanks.
It'd need syntax to distinguish from a local function called to_string. Anything less allows ambiguity and wouldn't be equivalent (like using type::method won't do auto-borrow). So it'd need to be "\to_string", "|to_string" or something. Ample opportunity for bikeshedding.

Functional style is hampered by excessive verbosity. (Non functional style is so verbose a bit of extra noise doesn't hurt _as much_.) Rust could use a lot more inference, custom operators[1], and so on. They seem to sort of agree, with auto-deref, auto-borrow, some type inference, but won't go all the way. I suppose being conservative can be defended -- can't go back without breaking code. Hopefully, in the future, the verbosity will annoy more people and there will be enough support to head in a more Haskell/ML direction. But they seem very opposed to it at the moment.

1: The rationale apparently being "someone might abuse it!" instead of "it makes good libraries even better". Parser combinators, UI toolkit code do great with custom operators. Require a method name (i.e. operator !!= as foo) if it's too great a concern. Can't save yourself from bad writers. Crippling yourself to avoid this seems like a poor tradeoff.
I've often wondered why so much of our transportation infrastructure appears to utterly discount things like aerodynamics. Planes and (some) passenger cars pay attention, but trucks, tractor-trailers, trains, and buses are basically moving bricks, slamming into the air in front of them, and dragging a partial vacuum behind them. Awfully fuel-inefficient, that.
That's a fair criticism of Romer's idea and one that deserves careful scrutiny.

It does beg the question, however, exactly what political problems stopped the Honduras project from going forward. The Podcast cited above focused on the personalities and personal resentments but there was clearly more going on behind the scenes. Romer himself was very circumspect about what actually happened.

For example in the Atlantic article Romer suggests driving things through non-US countries. This might not be pure coincidence.
It's not the same though; it can resolve to different methods based on non-local code. It also doesn't do autoborrow.
Your arguments are against the current development model not against charter cities.

The problem with the present arrangement is that western powers are not in charge, they merely give the money. This is causing the dependency you speak of. They are trying to solve the development problem merely with money. That fails for exactly the reasons you quote.

A charter city doesn't need to offer money. The idea of a charter city isn't about pouring money into a foreign country it is about offering western quality rule and regulations. Hong Kong was not an expense for Britain. It was an income. Hong Kong did not prosper because Britain poured money into it but because Britain ran it.

That is a big difference. People would not depend on charity, funds or resources from the charter city because it would not provide any of that. It would only provide the rule of law and uncorrupt government without red tape. That means people can go to the charter city to start a business without being tied down. You know in your average developing country setting up just a simple bakery legally requires over a hundred days of full time work dealing with bureaucracy. That is no joke, you can read Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto about the subject.
Do you have any specific recommendations to improve their methodology?
There aren't many fees for a usd to euro conversions at those amounts. One wire transfer for $50 and a point zero of a percent spread if that.
i think ML has changed the way i look at programming more than anything else. pattern matching over algebraic datatypes is a very powerful way to think about modelling something as code even if your language doesn't support either feature. (to paraphrase ashley yakeley, "every sufficiently well-documented lisp program contains an ML program in its comments")
Ask HN: Insider history of the demise of Kodak?
Most are familiar with the fact that Kodak developed the first digital camera in the 70s, and then never followed up on it, eventually becoming bankrupt as film became obsolete.

I'm interested in an 'insider' account of what was going on at Kodak during the rise of digital. My naive assumption is a bunch of 60+ executives with a 1950's mindset of "We're Kodak", and some junior execs proposed projects that are either ignored or ridiculed.

But I wonder, what really happened? Is there a source or interviews or the like? What were they saying in the meetings while digital products were hitting the market?
doctors have absolutely no idea how to treat any of this. Their standard NSAID/PT/Steroid shot combo is useless.

Just trying to see if anyone here has tried not anything unconventional.
What I find silly is, is the gov't really subsidizing housing in the end?

Offer a tax deduction on mortgage interest and people can afford a higher price so competition drives prices up and everyone ends up in the same place. Same with lower interest rates, etc.

One could argue there is a period where housing is easier to purchase once a new subsidy is created, but shortly after that, the market reaches equilibrium and we're back in the same place.

Just imagine if there were no housing subsidies. Housing prices would be mich lower. And yes, I know that's a gross oversimplification, but I think the effect is still there.
> I'll leave out the moralistic component. When it comes to value, some other considerations are the low interest rates we experience, the fixed 30-year loan, in the U.S. that is, and interest tax deductions. So one isn't pummeling 1M in investment that could otherwise go into a business. One is putting in 200k, even less with an FHA loan, and deducting the price of the loan.

IMO, until savers max out tax advantaged retirement savings options, mortgaging a primary residence isn't close to a sound investment. And that's really what this article is about: your home is not an investment, and you'd be better off renting one (or taking out an interest only loan) and investing the principle payments you would be making into the broader market.
And if you married an African, should you be allowed to live together in the same country? Her parents? Grand-parents?
This has been totally true for me. 99% specialists I've seen are totally clueless. Some of them flat out said they have no clue and can't help me other than offering advice to rest.
You always want to take off and land into the wind -- it increases your effective airspeed.
I was always curious about this. How does this kind of acceptance/rejection manifest itself in today's world? Is it just that these people thrown parties/events and deliberately not invite the "unsophisticated sobs"? Is it membership in clubs? Some kind of political influence? Admission to elite universities for their kids?
Clueless suggestion: What about the programmer (who implements the semigroup) also providing a proof (that can be automatically checked) that it satisfies associativity? Is that method perhaps already covered by one of the examples you mentioned?
The problem with simple high-performance RISC (and to even larger extent VLIW) designs is that invariably micro architecture details are going to leak into instruction set, either explicitly (branch delay slots, instruction combinations that do not handle hazards, weird memory models) or implicitly in form of micro architecture specific performance traps.

And main thing that seems to be required for general purpose computing is binary compatibility, which can be done almost for free on CISC designs while it makes RISC designs into complex nests of special cases.

Micro architectures that are not designed to directly execute user code (GPUs and such) do not have this problem and thus can do anything that makes the hardware go fast regardless of whether the resulting ISA looks sensible and whether it can be implemented in any other way (eg. drop pipeline stalls and forwarding paths, have separate register set for each execution unit...).

Another thing that limits general purpose CPUs is multitasking as it requires context-switches to be reasonably cheap, which means reasonably small and accessible architectural state (ie. not hundreds of architectural registers).
what obvious reasons? big cigar was keeping them in their place?
Nice, a modern Cabanon (http://www.tinyhousedesign.com/le-corbusiers-cabanon/).
In the same vein, I have not yet found anyone who knows why after 30 years or so of use, Microsoft decided to rename "locale" as "culture".
This clearly doesn't apply the United States then, who's culture is swallowing up immigrants and adding their influences to our melting pot.
The numbers I've seen here and there for a SF 2-BR would cover the mortgage on a 160 acre farm, plus the financing on new equipment to run it.
Mexico does (not sure what you count as developed countries :). I think most non-parliamentarian democracies do.
$160/4 year college programs? Where are these bargains?
> the @# syntax

Watch your language!
It's all about morality though. It's populist practice, and most people don't care about the long-term economic consequences. They want to be able to buy a house and start a family on an average income.

Furthermore, land is one of the few intrinsic assets of a sovereign state. With their intervention, they can enable diversified, private ownership of land, rather than a widely-recognized concentration of the state's land in a few hands.
> Schiller is looking at average across the entire country.

Have you actually looked at the Schiller time series data? It's an average of regional data. It's entirely appropriate to consider Schiller's subindexes if you live in one of the 20-30 metro areas they pull from.
So it's like autism epidemic?
When I first heard of Passport Please I was reminded of "Neal Stephenson - Error": the story contains a MMORPG which is used to "automate" stupid security tasks like screening people at an airport by "mapping" them to the MMORPG world were players are awarded when they detect a security threat. I hope this never becomes real.
Hmmm...let's see....Bay Area real estate has doubled since 2011, and has outpaced the S&P 500, even going back 30 years. So I guess all those people should feel like fools.

As they say, 'location location location' , which Shiller ignores, in favor of the quote that fits his thesis, 'they can't make more land'.

So tired of the generalizations and lazy thinking that passes for journalism these days, and even NYTs and Nobel Prize Winners are not immune
I mean, in the end it's impossible to completely prevent any scams from occurring. Even if we used a tax based system people could still lie, and we will wouldn't be able to see if they're telling the truth. It's not feasible to constantly check up on everyone.

They did verify that the RINs were being produced properly, which is what led to the guy being caught.

So I'm not sure what your argument is here. If you understand cap and trade systems, then you know that they aren't inherently gameable (which you just admitted). So are you saying that you think the EPA needs more funding?
That's a very relativistic point of view.

I'm talking about social class, which is a very real and well-documented phenomenon. Money is not a very good predictor of social class, because it only controls what you can buy.

To belong to a higher class, you have to use your money to buy the props that are necessary to perform that higher class, and you have to be able to do the performance as well.

For example: You buy business class tickets for your entire family for a vacation in Europe, and you still complain about how horrible flying is. Congratulations, you just performed upper-middle class!
Lock free != wait free

> As I understand these data structures have no effects on multi-system environments and can only be applied to a single system

I have no idea where to even begin with this statement. By this logic, no optimizations should be made to operations in a single threaded or single process environment. Distributing computation helps you achieve scale and HURTS latency except for extremely long running tasks.

And yes in games these sorts of things REALLY matter. Things are measured in tens to hundreds of microseconds and optimized accordingly. Not just games, but have you noticed how slow software has gotten of late? Deep learning, rendering, neural networks, AI, etc. Heck, even the browser that I'm typing this in is slow as shit and likely using far more memory than it is supposed to. What about compilers? Those things use trees, stacks, queues, etc and are getting slower all the time. It's the attitude that programmers don't need to care about this stuff that will permanently separate, in my opinion, engineers at the top of the curve from the rest.
> It's objectively not perfect, but then most languages have problems.

Let me be clear here: JS is not really any better or any worse than any other interpreted languages. Yeah, I can name a few language-level problems (whoever decided that Promises should silently eat exceptions was wrong), but the big problems are not unique. Things like awful numeric performance (I've done crypto in JS), horrible multithreading support (Python and Ruby have GILs so it's roughly the same thing), etc etc.

The difference is that JS/web programmers seem to be the only ones saying that things written in their language and platform of choice (JS/HTML/CSS webapps, inside or outside of Electron) are the future everybody wants. Like the ego-stroking whenever somebody posts a new Node or Electron tool that had no reason to be written in JS except that the developer just didn't want to use another language isn't weird. Like 123mb for a terminal emulator isn't ridiculous.

Javascript brings nothing to the table except that it's the only language you can use for web programming. Nothing.

The execution model is awful as well, since apparently in order to get any sort of decent performance in a webapp these days you need to maintain a shadow copy of the DOM just so you can hack around the browser's layout engine.

> JavaScript has some of the most advanced features of languages available today, including lambdas, closures, and asynchronous coding patterns that make it faster at dealing with IO than naive C implementations.

30 years programming experience and you want to compare an interpreted language to a naïve C implementation? Come on. Did you see the Python libuv asyncio implementation that is 2x faster than the equivalent code running in Node [0]? Python, using Node's own supporting libraries (http-parser also) is better than Node at Node's own game.

[0]: http://magic.io/blog/uvloop-blazing-fast-python-networking/
I would ask, "Who's 'we' in that sentence?".

If we could survey Iraqis how many would say, "Yes, I hate being invaded and occupied, but at least they got rid of that jerk Saddam."? Keeping in mind that we can't survey the dead...

Notwithstanding that awesome scene in Monty Python's "Life of Brian":

> Reg: All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?

> PFJ Member: Brought peace?

> Reg: Oh, peace? SHUT UP!

The basic issue facing everyone is how do we have the good stuff, while giving the bloodshed and trauma the miss?
If it covers results, what about the virtual ISAs that allow you to load data from any address of a byte-adressed memory and their implementations include optimizations?
> It might be a disadvantage to take off uphill, but I believe that it's desirable to take off into a head wind.

Both takeoff and landing are safer and more efficient in headwind, since lift is a function of airspeed an increase in airspeed (from headwinds) a larger margin or security or lower groundspeed in both situations.

GP's point is if your runways are slanted (rather than flat), instead of having both takeoff and landing use the same runway in the same direction (headwinds) you now need a runway slanting into the headwind (for takeoffs) and one slanting away from it (for landings).
That's obviously false since american TV shows portray people of pretty much every social class.
Sure, but the thesis is just that on average it's a bad investment, not that there are never winners.
Nvidia ’s GTX 1080 belongs in your VR dream machine (or at least mine)
And the fact that you were able to separate from said religion is probably made easier by the society you live in. In some cultures, the religion is synonymous with cultural identity, if not at least a central part of it.
You know what's funny about a hard fork "choice?" If you don't own majority shares, or have social influence with the majority, you get to choose to go along with the mass, or screw yourself. Great choice!
I'm not sure I can grasp why you're so negative about house ownership and you seem to be rather in some weird ideological cage that doesn't let you see the whole picture. Firstly you have something akin to the broken window fallacy going on: if I buy a house someone else (often a company) gets that cash and can invest it. The money does not disappear, and if I had taken the same loan (which I likely wouldn't have received without the house title as guarantee that the bank gets its money back) to start a company or invest in stocks there's a much higher probability of failure than that my house disappears. So it's a thrifty investment.

In particular as secondly, house ownership means I'll save on rent, rather than to pump money into someone else's pocket I'm accumulating the value. It's a simple calculation that this is in most cases in my benefit if I expect to be in the same spot for 5+ years. Real house value could even decrease over time, the rental costs I'm saving could still make it a good investment.

Thirdly, first house owners are unlikely to try to influence policy just to increase house value. Not sure how you can have such an idea, for most owners this would be unlikely to be worth the time& effort required just to increase house value 1℅ or so. But you can be sure they will fight for their quality of life (think parks, no planes, etc). That coincides with house value but for most average citizens the only (conscious/driving) reason to affect local policy is quality of life.

And lastly I think you're somehow too far from reality if you argue it is in an individual's interest to serve the wider economy. I'm not going to use my money just to benefit an imaginary wider economy - what is the benefit then for me? Why be rich if life sucks (and why risk all my money just to start a company if I have already a good income & life?) Do I live just to nudge Gdp up by 0.00001℅ over my lifetime? Or do I want a healthy life, a garden for my kids to play, etc.

Buying a house is a very rational decision and I"m not sure what you can see as selfish (in particular considering point 1). Your argument really is somewhat absurd and I find it hard to believe you make all your life decisions or buying decisions with such an approach (leasing your laptop? Living in a polygamous commune as keeping an attractive partner to yourself would keep potential value from the rest of humanity?).
I actually doubt that investment value is primarily what drove boomers to buy bigger houses. They did it because they wanted the comfort of a bigger house, and didn't value some things that they were giving up such as pedestrian neighborhoods.

Indeed, being a landlord is work, but I think that being your own landlord and pocketing the tax deductions and "imputed rent" is quite manageable for a family.