skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> I'm still at a loss as to why butts in seats management is still so dominant today.

Most jobs aren't 'creative at any time of the day by oneself' jobs. Support staff can't just clock in at 1pm, because that's when they feel most supportive. Government clerks can't just start and stop when they like, because the counter has to be staffed during office hours. Most office jobs need to have considerable overlap with the times of other people in the office.

Even for programmers, remote work and your own hours is not a clear win. Some people adore it and work well with it, but other people don't do so well in managing their own time. I've worked with people who work remote, make a pretense of busywork, and get little of substance done - but when they were in the office, they got more work done.

Penny-pinching time ("be here at 0900 exactly!"^) is silly, but at the same time, this meme that bosses are automatically bad if they want in-office work and general office hours... it is way too simplistic.

^ funny how those penny-pinchers never demand that you leave on time as well...
I have to say that I haven't experienced* the 12 to 15 transition that you refer; to me Opera is just a browser that changed over the time and, because I'm not a long date user, I never ever seen it as the advertising medium that you say.
Of course they could have chose to better differentiate themselves, but the actual decision/strategy seems to have worked also for me.

BTW, as long as I know, they also pushed some code into Chromium so I see it as a solid step toward the consolidation of web standards by using a common and open base. Better achieved if performance exists as well.

[*]: Even if I occasionally tried some desktop versions of Opera during the years, I've always preferred Firefox and later Chrome as default browser.
is certainly bad for our brains

Why? Can you elaborate on this point? What makes you so certain that doing so is bad for our brains? Bad in what way? Is the badness cumulative and irreparable? Is it temporary and reversible? Maybe it's good for our brains because it's less stressful than trying to cram 15 hours work in a 9 hour day.
India has about 18 official languages. Its hard to support all the official languages.

Also, the people who are online are mostly people who understand English. Supporting languages does not increase their outreach.
you might be interested in http://erlangonxen.org/ (LING) if you haven't seen it already!
Let's be honest about our tech industry privilege
When people see something like this, I think they immediately think of Tony Stark, or the Wright Brothers. Something quite romanticized. This teenage is probably smarter than I am, but he's not breaking even in his bedroom.

He also mentions building a laser.

> a wood burning CO2 laser turret

I'd be interested in the details about that. I did some research about what it would take to build a basic laser years and years ago, but gave up when I saw the kind of chemicals I'd need to handle. I wasn't confident I could deal with the chemicals correctly in my tiny apartment.
Common Lisp has a number of various namespaces that symbols can be defined in. Interfaces like DEFUN, DEFMACRO, and DEFINE-SYMBOL-MACRO all are explicit within their domain, and have explicit rules as to what is available when with respect to read/compile/evaluate times.

Common Lisp is a very explicit language, and that explicitness allows macros to easily coexist with other code, because nothing is hidden by syntax or "black magic". (By default. Because you can morph the language to do nearly anything you'd want to.)
Deleting the link tag (the website had a single style sheet) also undoes its effects. I'm on a webkit browser.
Likely: zero equity, and a negotiated wage that is less than the opportunity-cost of one's time because it had an expectation of "slack" calculated into it by the employer. Most retail jobs have these properties.
Um, what? The model is right there on page 5 and there's nothing wrong with it. The predictors include working hours, (working hours)^2, and others. The outcome is score on a cognitive assessment.

What's your agenda in trying to discredit this study with FUD, I wonder? Hopefully this can serve as yet another example of how to ignore commenters that sound like they know what they're talking about but actually don't.
Just wanted to add. Some of my comments are not directed at spreedly but about the whole shimmy shaw in general.

Oh, and remember... next Friday... is Hawaiian shirt day. So, you know, if you want to, go ahead and wear a Hawaiian shirt and jeans.
Ask HN: Why did famous.js fail?
Why didn't famous.js succeed take off?
cf:http://deprecated.famous.org/

This seems vastly superior (more logical, determnistic, and appropriate for modern web development than html+css) to a lot of the other options out there.
This is obviously entirely false if one takes "genius" to mean someone who does things a non-genius would not be able to do.

There have been attempts in recent years to roll back and debase the definition of genius to be more compatible with egalitarianism (especially in parts of Europe) and the tenet of homogeneity but this is not what genius originally stood for.

Fabian Tasano writes:

"Regarding the version of “genius” that is currently in retreat but still occasionally used: many people seem to have a simplistic idea of what it takes to be one. According to one popular model, all that is required is an increase in the magnitude of certain qualities which everyone already possesses in some measure. Make the particular qualities pronounced enough, and you get to genius.

But a better way to understand the concept — assuming we’re applying the word to (say) Gauss or Picasso, rather than John Cleese or Wayne Rooney — may be that a genius has a particular capacity, which on a certain level can seem obvious or unremarkable, but which no one else has.

A genius, on this understanding, is a person uniquely capable of making a leap ‘off the path’. With hindsight the leap may seem simple or obvious, but at the time no one else was, apparently, capable of making it.

A potential leap of this kind is made possible by preceding leaps. Nevertheless its actual occurrence may go on not happening for decades. During that time there may be clear pointers towards it. Yet it is not until a genius comes along that the leap actually happens."

I could not agree more with this. Alan Kay also outlines an extremely similar point of view: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvmTSpJU-Xc (Normal considered harmful).

Programming is an artistic/creative process. The crowd will never beat genius in this game since the "vision" of the crowd will be diluted by each participating individual. The obvious exception here lies in crowds that are ruled by geniuses with an iron fist (thus not really committees), something which can only strengthen my point. Examples that support this from the past 30 years in technology are countless. We even have sayings about software designed-by-committee.

The point Hintjens is trying to make with ZeroMQ is flawed because he equates the evolution of an idea that has already manifested to the inception of the idea itself.
> I bet there's an age correlation, too.

Only 90's kids will get JS this.
[video] Nutanix – How it works
Why is serverless particularly bad for this?

If anything, it is easier with serverless, because you can branch pretty cleanly down to the single function level.

All you need is a level of indirection, usually at the domain and pathing level.
Can't imagine a college that wouldn't jump at the opportunity now. Might be a solid first lesson on the real world - people that don't understand will be naysayers, and those that do will marvel at your work.
Maybe he should just take a year off? Keep working on this or other cool projects and apply next year. Might be worth it if he lands a serious scholarship from an elite school.

Speaking from experience, taking a gap year was the best decision I ever made.
That's the thing, its not a conspiracy theory. Everybody already believe, even secular turks like me, that Gulen was behind many things in Turkey like: The imprisonment of more than 1000 "secular" officers in the army since 2007 with the Ergenekon Operation, and later with the Balyoz operation. The irony is when we accused Gulen of being behind those operations, AKP and Erdogan were accusing the seculars for being conspiracy theorist.
This is also a great way to get arrested thanks to some overly concerned seating neighbour.
But the problem isn't nuclear detonation, it's about using the weapons as a dirty bomb:

With a few hours and the right tools and training, you could open one of nato’s nuclear-weapons storage vaults, remove a weapon, and bypass the pal inside it. Within seconds, you could place an explosive device on top of a storage vault, destroy the weapon, and release a lethal radioactive cloud.
Well, you can look at it this way, he would have never been well-served by the traditional society-determined path anyway. A project like this has the tendency to just blow away all other considerations.

If you were hiring for a physics position, would you take the guy who got straight A's on his physics coursework, or the guy who built an effing nuclear reactor in his bedroom?
You actually CAN'T have a standard FFI, without having a blessed implementation, as so much of FFI is implementation specific. Besides, it would force FFIs in scheme to do The Right Thing to handle continuations (many don't). And call/cc is expensive enough as it is.
Same here: he could do a killer program like this(which I did) and apply when he gets back: https://www.wheretherebedragons.com/
You can disable the default metrics by using the uninstrumented handler https://godoc.org/github.com/prometheus/client_golang/promet...

It's a best practice to export all available metrics though, you'll likely run into situations where you'll need them. It's not that many time series exported by default which shouldn't cause any problems.
As a physicist, I'm not happy with the trend of new research fields calling themselves science (mainly for benefiting from the hard-earned respect physics [or natural philosophy, as it was called] has gained throughout centuries, which is the real problem [rather than etymology]), and recently introduced concepts to gain some legitimacy, for justification, such as "hard science", "natural science", etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science#Criticis...

Now the word "science" somehow means "legitimate and respectable research". What's worse, it's not the reality of these fields but a distortion of reality through verbal association, and the word "science" is slowly being dragged into mud due to non-reproducible or downright wrong published results thanks to many such fields of "science".

I should also add that mere "data fitting and data extrapolation" with no basic theory of fundamental understanding isn't science either.

If you're curious about the details, Feynman has defined the issue very well at some point

http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.pdf
Excellent description of writing mechanics. As several others have pointed out, vim (and emacs though slightly differently) through its mark, copy, and move commands offers similar mechanics.

I've used Wordstar, though only for a year or so, and a quarter century ago or so. Memories...
> the employee asks the company what is the most they can afford to pay you

I infer that people don't do this, or at least similar to this via "what is the budget range for this position" type phrasing.

Is my inference correct? Besides a lack of confidence, why?
I've had the Dell XPS 13 Developer Edition with Ubuntu installed for a few weeks now and love it. It works as well as you could hope any Linux laptop could work.
Basically, you can build a cathedral per project. It will be elegant, all parts will be purely sufficient and focused on getting the pieces of that particular project working.

But when the project changes in certain ways, that bespoke foundation no longer suffices. Time to take the wrecking ball to it and start building a new cathedral.

It is technically true that you can reduce the sheer amount of code involved with a running program, but I for one would not wish to. I would rather inherit the problem-solving, optimization insights, and compatibility tackling of others inherent in OS modules and libraries (along with their "bloat" and complexity), than carry all the weight of non-project-specific development from bare metal. This is a statement of scope and time as well of that of surface of opportunity for bugs and weaknesses.
It is a bit difficult to have static type checking, type inference, and dynamic code generation all working together seamlessly. If you have a macro expansion whose types are entirely inferred, then naturally they should check properly, even if they are inferred improperly.

The larger the macro, the more cryptic the errors are as well, since you could conceivably be generating entire functions whose output and input types are inferred based on very distant macro input and context, and such a type error is going to be very confusing to your users. C++ has this problem: simple errors can dump a dozen screens of template garbage on you.
"living things should not be within 35 feet as x-ray radiation is quite high"

hopefully this is a house in a low-density suburb and not an apartment. amazing achievement, but at the same time very dangerous to be generating x-rays out of your bedroom.
The sad thing is that if you were faculty, looking for a graduate student to supervise, you'd probably pick the one with straight A's and no hobbies, because you could get them to do whatever you wanted, without risk of them getting their own ideas or leaving.
also this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn
Early work is closer to a lottery than anything else. If you only look at winners you will end up with a distorted view, but right product, right time, right market is more about luck than skill. MVP is all about validation because there is no way to judge good vs great before you build it. So, the only way to improve odds is to just roll more dice.
IOFIT:The world's first smart shoes that acts as your personal golf coach
IOFIT is the world's first smart shoes that helps golfers quickly and smartly improve their game while having fun. You can instantly analyze your swing and get professional feedback through our simple and easy-to-use smartphone app.

Check out IOFIT teaser video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKyx6gu1nLY

News outlets like Cnet, Fortune, Forbes, and more have written about our revolutionary product. IOFIT will be available for pre-order very soon on Kickstarter.

To find out more:
www.iofitshoes.com
www.facebook.com/iofitshoes
www.twitter.com/iofitshoes
www.instagram/iofitshoes
It is very hard to prove something like this, you should understand that these kind of subversive groups don't work with a straight command chain. It is much more like ISIS cells, you don't know who is who and how they operate.
It wasn't a transition. There is no other way to describe as this:

They threw away a perfectly functional software package with thousands of features, and replaced it with a fork of third-party software that didn't offer even a tenth of the features of the original package.

That said, yes, the strategy worked. The world at large swallowed their lie because it was mostly people like you, who weren't using Opera in the first place, and didn't know better about what really happened.

The people who suffered were their loyal users, people who had even bought Opera at some point.
Charming variation of how civilization is a thin veneer.
I remember back when they had a limit of minutes per month and I had to create like 5 Facebook accounts to bypass it.
That's 'Billion' with a 'B': Scaling to the Next Level at WhatsApp (2014)
I've looked into that as well. There are a bunch of lasers that are DIY-able, and AFAIK dye-based lasers are the only ones that really require "chemicals".

TEA lasers are basically just a few pieces of metal and high-voltage, seen them at high-school level quite a few times: http://www.sparkbangbuzz.com/tealaser/tealaser7.htm

CO2 lasers are relatively complex and are easiest if you buy some parts readymade, but can be completely homebuild as well: http://jarrodkinsey.org/co2laser/co2laser.html

There are tons of ressources online, a good overviw over different possibilities and basic information can be found here: http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/laserfaq.htm#faqtoc
The main problem I see here is the problem we run into with every hot new abstraction of a thing that some people find troublesome as developers.

Someone already mentioned virtual hosting. I'd like to bring up ORMs. There's this idea that you can forget about the datastore--abstract it away, manage it in code, whatever. You don't have to learn about databases, table structures, or SQL if you don't want to. Just think about your models and don't worry about the rest.

I'm not against ORMS and find them both amazing and useful in certain ways. What I am against are systems developed entirely by developers who refuse to think about these things. Especially when I have to come into the situation after they have left and do something genuinely unforeseeable, like provide reporting and analytics from the back end, integrate with a third-party system, or--god forbid--add new functionality.

What you're left with is a dysfunctional, slow, mess that's incredibly difficult to work with, a data layer that makes no sense unless you're working with that particular ORM, and no ability to tell exactly where in a quarter-million lines of code the exact logic you want to fix or modify actually is.

Yes, I'm quite certain that no one would recommend that anyone use serverless architecture that way. It's the wrong tool for the job. Just like ORMs are the wrong tool when performance is critical and you need to manage complexity for 30 services from the same data layer.

But someone is going to do it. In reality, probably lots of people will. Some CTOs will buy into the hype and hire teams of consultants to do it or hire their actual dev team full of serverless experts.

I'd echo what someone else said to the effect of abstractions are great so long as you understand what you're abstracting and know when it's a good idea to do so.

Viewed as a tool for accomplishing a small thing pretty quickly, it sounds cheap, fun, and exciting.

Viewed as a new way of taking shortcuts around quality infrastructure that's needed to support large, complex systems, I feel like it's probably a bad idea.

Given my attitudes above, it's probably not a surprise that I find the description a bit sketchy. I think calling it Serverless is a misnomer for all of the many good reasons people have pointed out in this thread. But I also question calling it architecture.

What I expect we will see in fairly short order is a collection of libraries or frameworks that resemble PhP not only in function (a service that pops in and out of existence on demand) but also a language-like form that evolves rather than being intentionally built--and evolves towards ease-of-beginner use rather than being guided by a coherent architecture.

And, in the grand scheme of things, that's fine with me. I just hope I never inherit a system like that.
It's a fascinating application of crypto and physics, but there's a major problem with putting this into practice: How do you verify that the opponent has put this detector (I'll call it a "NuRF hat") on all of their nukes? As part of a treaty, both sides might apply the Nurf hat to only the number of nukes they are believed to have, but holding some back.

And if the opponent removes the Nurf Hat--claiming they decommissioned the nuke--how would you know it's true?
Try this as a Muslin and you are (probably) dead...

Actually, try this as a non-white person and you are dead...

Actually, try this, and you are dead (not sure how the author got away with it).

Once I was flying to the United States and in the middle of the flight the screen in front of me printed a familiar image, Tux, the famous penguin icon of Linux (the entertainment system was rebooting or something). I thought it was interesting so I decided to take a picture, the woman that was sitting on my side asked me what was that and why was I taking a picture, so I smiled and said "Somebody hacked the plane", as you can guess she didn't get the "joke" and started (nervously) to look for one of the flight attendants, 3-5 minutes later she went to the bathroom but oh surprise (or maybe not) she returned with two of the flight attendants that started asking for my passport and to allow them to check my cabin bags. They were cool after I clarified the situation, but this was a lesson for me to 1) don't try to do stupid things in a plane, 2) don't joke with nervous people.

I just remember the story of this mathematician that was writing some formulas in the plane and the person on his side thought that he was planning a terrorist attack. This is why it surprises me that the author of this article was able to get away with his "experiment" just like that.

EDIT: Re-reading the article, he says that "the flight staff weren’t angry that I had cannibalized their headphones" and then continues with "If you work for Emirates, let me know and I’ll give you the seat and flight number". Considering this I will assume that they weren't angry because a) its a rich airline so they assume that people taking their flights are "harmless", or b) Middle East citizens are used to plane hijacks (this is actually a really bad joke, and I will accept the downvotes with resignation).
This sentence stuck out to me, from the 'Overview' page:

"Because Vulkan is so explicit about every operation and the validation layers are so extensive, it can actually be a lot easier to find out why your screen is black compared to OpenGL and Direct3D!"

So Vulkan is verbose? Meh - do it once, put it in a function/class/etc abstraction of your choice. On the other hand, while I now know OpenGL well enough that I rarely have the black screen problem anymore, I've had the kind of lingering, conditioned fear of it hammered into me. I haven't spent enough time with Vulkan to witness it for myself yet but I find the above sentence encouraging.
Like I said, he never would have been served by the traditional path. With that kind of talent and drive, you don't need the academy, the academy needs you. They'll find a spot for him.
Hmm, for C programs I use https://talloc.samba.org/talloc/doc/html/index.html or the more cut-down ccan/tal http://ccodearchive.net/info/tal.html

There's sometimes a great insight available in viewing your allocation hierarchy on a running program, too.
I couldn't have put it more clearly than that. Of course your statement clearly illustrates exactly why we should never cut support for Israel.

Yeah ! If we just allow them to kill or at least conquer/enslave the Jews (and the gays, as Israel is the last country in the middle east where those are safe, and atheists, and people of different religions in general, and ...) they'll be just fine with us. They'll like us !

Hurray ! Let's do that !
Just guessing, and assuming they were relatively generous with equity since they seem like the type of company that would be.
Less Stockholm syndrome, more necessity in technical fields.
Apparently, there was a story about Murray Gell-Mann, where his graduate students realized that he didn't think of things they couldn't, he only got there faster. So while exploring a new line of research, they brainstormed for an hour without Gell-Mann, then had their new insights thought out ahead of time. So they then reenacted the brainstorming session with him, such that they could blurt out all of the new insights just before he could speak. (Usually, it worked the other way around.)

He was left wondering if he was losing his touch.

I had a grad school professor who was like this. He was constantly speaking the thought, just as you were completing it in your head.