skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I tried to ask the author the follow: (kept getting deleted as spam). Perhaps he will see it here but its unlikely due to the fact there are many comments as it is.

Hi John,

Are you familiar with Jackson Structured Programming?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson_structured_programming

Notice how the focus in on using control flows that are derived from the structure of the data being processed and the processed data. Notice how the JSP derived solution in the Wikipedia example lack if-statements.

Pattern matching allows ones to map control flow to the structure of data. What are your thoughts on that? I think inversion of control has other benefits but I don't think it has much to do with elimination of `if` conditionals, the pattern matching does that.

Also, I noticed one thing:

In the article you mention `doX :: State -> IO ()` as being called for its value and suggest that if you ignore the value the function call has no effect. Isn't it the case that a function of that type usually denotes that one is calling the function for its effect and not for any return value? Its value is just an unevaluated `IO ()`.
GWT is not a transpiler only. It is a framework. In GWT, the transpiler part is so little that it would be totally wrong to assume that transpilers are wrong because GWT is wrong. JSweet is like TypeScript. It just adds typing. No runtime, no lib, no framework, just a transpiler: I don't see any issues except if you consider that typing is an issue.
Then go back to the sand from where you came from and renounce the west. We don't want you here if you don't want to be here.
Show HN: Celery Distributed Task Queue Client/Worker in Go
World Real Estate Congress 2018 in Dubai
When I worked for the State Department, that phrase meant 'digitize it'. When did the meaning change?
1) This is not true.

2) That's why I said this is what intent looks like -- I'm not making any claims about whether she did in fact break any laws. I have no way of knowing that.
The link I had in my comment was a C++ compiler for the browser. DOM and everything.
Lambas are actually supported in most popular languages: C++, Java, C#, Go, JavaScript, even C. Sometimes they're called function literals or anonymous functions, but basically they involve creating a function without a name that can be passed around and executed. In some languages (Haskell, OCaml, etc) the anonymous functions can be extremely generic, whereas they are sometimes a bit less flexible in other languages. If you want a quick intro you can find one here: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16501/what-is-a-lambda-fu...
In fact it's not a case of infidelity: Sir Elton John has an open marriage so the celebrity threesome would be within the bounds of their promises to each other.
Well, that's the stopgap, for sure.

But recall that the US took down Liberty Reserve in Costa Rica, and that Russia does sometimes cooperate with the US on cybercrime.

Long term, what we need are distributed safe havens that can't be localized or taken down.
Do you scale? Can you look through 100 million emails tomorrow for me?
The comments in this thread and the link to ltu in this thread talk about one of the simplest and most elegant solutions to the expression problem https://m.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/4gjf7g/is_solving_th...
Cyberpower Crushes Coup Rewriting the rulebook on coups, time to add cyberpower
The return value of the function is a description of an effect. Calling the function doesn't cause the effect to happen. That's why you could, for example, call the function many times and get a list of IO actions which you then execute in parallel or backwards or whatever. Hence "inversion of control".
The title says "destroy all ifs". The author already did take the idea to the extreme himself.
Previous discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12046444
just tried ghostery and Cannot see any tracking on duckduckgo
I think the point is that they want to measure how often Wi-Fi Sense is used.
I disagree. I have been developing an IONIC application with JSweet. My experience is that when I want to refactor the code (for example, just renaming the data objects because the customer changes its mind about how to name something), then you are happy to have JSweet and you can make the code up-to-date in no time. The more the application gets complex, the better it is to have a transpiler to help you update your code safely. Your Faustian deal applies more to JavaScript IMO. It is very cool at the beginning, but at some point you start wondering what happens in your code and you need to write it again from scratch because it is not maintainable any more. JSweet is not GWT. It you don't like Java, try at least TypeScript and I am pretty sure you will change your mind.
That article had no evidence on its face, and was debunked in the comments.
except that many LEDs flicker horribly because they have bad electronics, and the consumer has no way to judge quality.
This is from July 6th BTW. There has since been a fair amount of back-and-forth on this between Musk and Stephen from Fortune. This episode has also granted us this particularly delightful AMA on reddit, wherein Stephen roundly ignores comments calling out the questionable links between recent Fortune coverage and the Koch's ongoing crusade against renewable energy: https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/4rqa6q/hey_i_am_steph...
Introducing StackDeploy
If you patent a compression algorithm, and Facebook infringes, and you are also using React, and you sue Facebook over your compression algorithm patent then:

Your license to any patents which Faceboook may or may not have that cover elements of React will terminate. At that point, Facebook may choose to initiate a lawsuit against you over your infringement of whatever React patents (if any) they have.

So if you have (or are planning on obtaining) software patents, the React patent grant may not be very valuable. (Then again, Facebook may not have any patents actually covered by the grant, in which case it's not valuable to anyone.)
From Tesla's statement: "contrasted against worldwide accident data, customers using Autopilot are statistically safer than those not using it at all"

I think this is a foolish statement: fatal accidents in the US are 1.3 per 100M miles driven. Tesla reports autopilot has driven 100M miles. That's not enough data collected to draw this kind of conclusion.

There's a parallel here with software testing. I've seen bugs that happen 25% of the time, for example, and take 10 minutes to run a test. Our test guys have great intentions, but if they test 5 times and see no bug, they think the bug is gone. There is no instinctive understanding that they have insufficient data to draw a conclusion.
This is from 10 days ago. Why am I finding it at the top of HN now ?
I suspect the F# interface will not only be more to your liking, and probably be trivial to tie in with MBrace which is a pretty damn great library.

All C#/Java style static typing code not only looks like that, but often calls it "best practice."

Worth noting that "await" use is quite elegant in what it does here.
What makes you think there would need to be any secrecy involved in offshoring data?
This only covers trademark dilution which is one cause of action for trademark infringement, but not the only possible cause of action. Usually trademark dilution is argued when the products are dissimilar. In this case, they are not dissimilar. And as such, this is the regular definition of infringement and is not covered by 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(3). It falls distinctly under § 1125(a).

PS - You linked to 15 U.S.C. § 1127, but quoted 1125.

PPS - An overview of the difference between dilution and infringement: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-trademark-diluti...
"That Tesla Autopilot had been safely used in over 100 million miles [...] That contrasted against worldwide accident data, customers using Autopilot are statistically safer than those not using it at all."

That is such a weak statistical claim, that it border the disingenuous.

Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12082893
> We self-insure against the risk of product liability claims, meaning that any product liability claims will have to be paid from company funds, not by insurance.

Why do they do this? I can understand it when government property is not insured, e.g. UK Civil Service, as the enterprise is so vast and general taxation can fill the gaps. I can also understand that some things can`t be insured, e.g. nuclear power plants, but why does Tesla `vertically integrate` insurance, particularly given that the product is statistically likely to kill someone in due course?
When you work in a team with other people, certain collaboration skills are useful and necessary. I am god and have seen it all and i am going to reject other's ideas is not a productive attitude. Cost conscious managers are going to ask tough questions like if you are so good why are you competing with a 3 years experience software dev?
Granted, I'm a mostly self-taught programmer, but I would have thought that if something appears in formal logic,[0] it should have an analog in a programming language.

Even standard algorithms like quicksort[1] use conditionals.

And, while I can see how massive switch statements suck, normal conditionals are common in everyday life: "If they don't have a dark roast coffee, get me a medium roast."

All of which is to say, I really don't understand what he's getting at. The last example he gave seemed to make things even more complicated, and it basically renamed "true" and "false" to more descriptive things (forRealOptions, dryRunOptions), which seems to my untrained eye to boil down to the moral equivalent of a C enum.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_conditional

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quicksort#Algorithm
I think this is a foolish statement: fatal accidents in the US are 1.3 per 100M miles driven. Tesla reports autopilot has driven 100M miles. That's not enough data collected to draw this kind of conclusion.

Also, not all miles are equal. I'd hope that people are enabling Autopilot primarily while driving on straightish roads with good driving conditions -- in other words, at times when the rate of fatalities with a human driver is far less than 1.3 per 100M miles.
This is a brilliant idea - thank you!
Star will explode as supernova. What can I do so that my planet survives that?
>Personally, I think people put too much emphasis on "natural talent." There may be such a thing...

It's comforting to think that we are all capable of greatness. That doesn't make it so. It seems easier to accept with physical prowess. Do you think any amount of practice will bring me, an average Joe, even remotely close to the sprinting abilities of Usain Bolt? Clearly he was born with a physique that I was not. It's plain to see and so, natural physical talent is not something that is hard to accept. Why would natural mental talent be any different?

btw: i'm a high school teacher. I see the difference between gifted, middle of the road and ... um how to put it kindly, academically challenged individuals all the time. It may not be very PC, but there are loads of dummies among us and there's not much they can do do lift themselves up to even basic levels of intelligence. And just to be clear I'm not talking about the intellectually disabled.

> deliberate practice over long periods of time is what makes the biggest difference, and it can beat out "natural talent"

No. It will only beat out natural talent that never bothered to hone the same skills. Combining natural talent with practice is simply unbeatable and no amount of deliberate practice will allow you to reach the same heights.

This is patently obvious with physical ability. Why so hard to accept the same with mental ability?
> That they have no harmony does not mean that preference for consonance over dissonance isn’t baked into universal human auditory processing because if they would develop harmony they might end up with the same preferences we have because we share the same human auditory processing.

Or they might develop the same preferences because they're exposed to the same stimuli. Or they might not develop the same preferences at all. Or they might prefer alternation between both.
Insurance companies are profitable because they charge more then they pay out, in aggregate. If you have adequate capital, it is cheaper to self-insure since you don't need to pay for the profits of the insurance company.
Why can't spaceships just accelerate to create gravity?
"Surfing the web" used to be a common term one to two decades ago.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/01...

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/surfing-the-web
Cutting power will buy less than a week of opportunity, and piss off LOTS of other ordinarily unmotivated, apolitical people.

You don't need a week; if you don't have any serious opposition under control within a few hours, you've lost.
DuckDuckGo doesn't save your IP address, that's part of what they mean when they say they don't track you.
Would unit tests have helped Citigroup to avoid this expensive mistake?
I was wondering about the 1.3/100m number and found this:

http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx

It has data from 1994 to 2014, including this plus several other statistics. In particular, it looks like they are tracking on the order of trillions of miles driven per year, so you're right, making any kind of statement after only 100 million is more shameful marketing than anything else.

Edit: this is US-only, while Tesla is claiming vs. worldwide. Clearly more miles driven worldwide, and probably higher deaths per 100m miles.
Banking on Blockchain – ING Wholesale Banking (in association with IBM) [pdf]
Many large corporations self-insure. If you have the assets to pay out expected claims, it makes sense to avoid paying premiums.
Maybe a nitpick, but if your bug happens 25% of the time, then you haven't yet found the root cause. Until you do so, no amount of data will help you draw a conclusion.
Old response, but in case you check...

Just wanted to clarify that I'm not blaming us for getting suckered in, it's more that everything we do, whether intentional or not, plays into it. It's a self-feeding beast; you go to a website and a dozen trackers pull your private data, send it off in sale, and somewhere down the line you get served an ad for self-sealing stembolts; advertisers call this a success and claim the system works. Accidentally fat-finger the ad on your phone? Amazing success!

Just about any time you touch a piece of technology, you send off data for the advertisers. Buy some fruit at the market and use your market card? Advertisers know. Or order something online from a "no name" shop? Advertisers know.

So it's not that we're guilty of anything but doing what we are expected to - it just it's costly.
Probably because they feel that their true product liability costs will be far lower than what the insurance companies think they would be. Given that insurance companies have no previous data on crash rates and little visibility into Tesla's products, they would have to be extremely conservative, and charge Tesla a prohibitively large amount to insure them.
One thing I _will_ say for the "decaying exponent" thing is that it's somewhat similar in concept, but only somewhat, to the "smoothed sums" thing described in <https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2010/04/10/the-euler-maclauri.... That is, if you use "e^(-x)" as your "cutoff function" and set epsilon to 1/N the two start looking quite similar.

Now e^(-x) is a totally bogus "cutoff function" per the definition in Terry's blog post, since it is not compactly supported, but it _is_ bounded, _does_ equal 1 at 0, and drops off fast enough that for practical purposes it can be used to do smoothed sums. In particular the smoothed sums will converge for most cases (e.g. anything where the sequence we're "summing" has at most polynomial growth will do so), which means you can at least try to do the rest of the analysis. I suspect, but have not checked, that the other places where compact support is used in his presentation also work out for the sorts of sequences we're talking about.

Either way, the upshot is that in some sense you have some sequence of approximations to your "actual" sum, indexed by N, and you show that for large N they all look like "power series" in 1/N which allows some finite number of negative exponents and all the approximations have matching coefficients for the negative exponents and the same constant term. And then you compute that constant term. Calling that the sum of the series is nonsense, of course, but it can still give you interesting information about something, maybe.
> I'm more mentally exhausted by the endlessness of pure contrarianism on the Internet. It gets worse and worse with each year and I'm losing my enjoyment of social communities.

Let me be the first to say I agree. And I'm a contrarian!

It just can't be possible that every discrepancy deserves the effort to refute and correct, and we're biologically trained to approximate as a matter of priority.

It took me 9987 hours to learn that.
A simple databaseless referer tracker for websites
The 1 percent are parasites – debunking lies about trickle-down and capitalism
If I say "I have found and understood the bug", we still have to re-test to verify that the bug is not still present. Assuming that we are looking for a bug which, based on a race condition, occurs 25% of the time...
Keynote app for Developers
It makes it look nicer in Coffeescript to have the function last, but yes, I agree.
'The moment government got involved in the Internet' would be from its inception as a government project for a communications network that could withstand nuclear war.

Even if you mean the Web, that came out of CERN, another government project.

Government has always been a part of telecom, it's key national infrastructure.

Consumer level end to end crypto that can avoid government surveillance is a very new development.
Belligerent as usual. I wonder if Musk writes these himself.

edit: I'm being downvoted for this, but I wasn't using "belligerent" negatively here; I was wondering aloud whether Tesla's characteristically aggressive approach to damage control is the result of direct involvement from Musk. Doesn't seem that crazy to imagine that it is.
420 job
Work for a variety of grows and dispensaries all over California, while building your resume with multiple different tasks

and responsibilities. Whether you are looking to be placed in the Industry or want to progress with Greenhouse Bud, the

opportunities are endless. Greenhouse Bud is a full service staffing agency dedicated to providing ALL positions in the

Cannabis Industry. Hiring for multiple positions:
•Trimmer
•Budtender
•Grower
•Packager
•And more Email (420fortune1@gmail.com) for more info.
It was so obviously a staged coup.
Web search isn't that simple. The search engine does more sophisticated work than that. For example, if no one ever clicks on abcd results, it wont show them when you search for abc.
This really is the crux, unlike fluorescent (including CFL) and traditional incandescent lamps LED's are a lot more sensitive to having consistent DC power, a crappy little capacitive dropper is not appropriate to power them, yet a lot of manufacturers decided to cheap out on an additional diode to build a proper bridge rectifier. The amount of electronics to properly drive an chain of LED's is so simple and cheap I really can't figure out why they are shaving tenths a penny or two (considering the bulk rates they can get these parts at) on lamps that are sold at pretty high profit margins.

I really wish there was someone like bigclive that just tore down LED lamps sold in the US and posted reviews on Amazon, etc. about the internal driver circuitry.
>Although please come back when this becomes a true statement.

That sir is uncalled for.
Wow, thanks for posting this and to the investigative journalist.

Now I know whom to blame for all the heartburn that I (and family) had from the continuously fusing bulbs.
Deeper Ventures into Ericsson (Packet) Abis
It's worse than a few points, Chris Hannemann did a couple tests with the same drop of blood across multiple meters, and the results varied quite wildly across them.

https://medium.com/@chrishannemann/a-craftsman-blames-his-to...

https://medium.com/@chrishannemann/measure-seventy-five-time...
I haven't found US figures, but for the UK, motorway driving has a far lower fatality rate than non-motorway driving. "Although motorways carry around 21 per cent of traffic, they only account for 6 per cent of fatalities and 5 per cent of injured casualties. In 2015, the number of fatalities on motorways rose from 96 deaths to 110."[1] Since Tesla's "autopilot" is only rated for motorway (freeway) driving, it should be compared against motorway fatality rates, which are about a third of general driving rates. So a realistic estimate of the fatal accident rate for human freeway driving is maybe 0.3 per 100 million miles driven. Tesla is doing much worse than that.

To rate an automatic driving system, you want to look at accident rates, not fatality rates. Accident rates reflect how well the control system works. Fatality rates reflect crash survivability. Tesla needs to publish their crash data. That's going to be disclosed, because the NHTSA ordered Tesla to submit that information.

[1] http://www.racfoundation.org/motoring-faqs/safety#a5
I was debating whether on not to put that last sentence because I knew that it would lead to a technical discussion that was aside from the meaning of the question. My question is more -- why choose an `IO ()` as an example of something being called for its value (especially since the article isn't aimed at a Haskell audience)
> I don't want to get in a debate about what a hedge fund is, but while the term "Hedging" is the practice of reducing risk, the goal of most hedge funds is to maximize ROI.

So you're not a hedge fund.

>The funds is bench marked to Credit Suisee HF Index, Citibank Prime +5%, S&P 500.

What a crazy combination of benchmarks.
Your comment captures the problem far better.

For 100 years, if a bulb burned out or you bought a lamp, you went a bought a sodding lightbulb. The choices were clear... good brand/shit brand. 20/40/60/75/100/150/3way. Soft white or not soft white. They cost like a quarter.

Now the Home Depot lightbulb aisle is as complicated as the screw and fastener aisle. My guess is the average bigbox home store has 50 SKUs on the shelf for 60 watt equivalent bulbs. It's ridiculous.
We await your efforts. Please detail the advantages your system will have over existing cron implementations and put up a kickstarter.
What made freshdesk and greenhouse succeed in crowded market?
When Freshdesk and Greenhouse launched, market was already crowded with too many big players doing reasonably well and had tons of cash in their respective domains.
- What made founders decide to go ahead with their idea in red ocean?
- What strategies did they employ to beat the competition and displace already established companies?
- What challenges do companies typically face when launching a product where market is huge and there are lots of established companies doing reasonably well and with not-so-bad product.
- Does it even make sense to attempt a product wherein your product will not be 10x better compared to existing companies based on your product vision but market is huge?