skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
An interesting fact I think is worth mentioning is that Docker for Mac uses a forked and currently closed version of xhyve, and not the same xhyve that we can find on Github. The last commit to open source xhyve was May 27.

With that said Docker has plans to open source it, I wonder if that will happen soon as they declare Docker for Mac ready for production. That would imply that the xhyve port also should be ready be contributed back or spin out into a new project (the quote below said they were not sure if they wanted to contribute back or make a new project).

Personally I think the "right thing to do" would be to contribute back to xhyve, at the same time I have a feeling it's more valuable for Docker Inc to "own" and control their own fork/project so I would guess they will go down that path instead (it would still be open source, just under a different project name).

Source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11356293

EDIT: I stand corrected, see talex5 comment below, I had missed the hyperkit announcement.
Immediate 301... and if the browser were following the RFC it could update any bookmark itself (perhaps with a prompt for confirmation). Maybe they already do that? Not checked.

But I don't want a message about some URL change (that can be handled seamlessly by computers) put between me and the page I asked for, particularly if it's still going to get there any how, it's just not a great user experience IMO.
Choose the best urinal in the men’s room with math
I'm so glad I didn't go into web development.
Show HN: A minimalistic browser-based game to de-stress
How to Plan a Wedding on a Budget – Wedding Budget Checklist
I tried that with a so called credit checking agency in the UK called "Credit Expert". These [scumbags] deserve a Dark Pattern gold star. To see your credit score you have to sign up with a credit card for a subscription. They know full well that everyone wants to just make sure that their credit score is ok, not be charged a monthly rate. They tell you it will cost X a month so you try to cancel within the given time. You have to call a phone number- can't do it online. That's also deliberate. You have to wait x minutes on the phone until you get to their cancellations department. I tell them I want to cancel. They say I 'signed up' and cancelled a year before so they are going to charge me the first month anyway. I am forced to accept and I call my bank a perform a chargeback. 2 months later the chargeback is reversed and I'm charged the full amount because the bank apparently investigated and deemed it a valid transaction.
Music loop is awesome.
One word: MySpace
If you cripple your browser some websites will break. Don't expect site owners to make them work just for you.

Fail gracefully was over the moment the "disable javascript" checkbox was removed from the options menu in every major browser.
Faddeev–Popov ghosts in particular are artifacts of covariant quantization in the path integral formalism. One way to think of them is as a kind of Jacobian determinant of the transformation to physical degrees of freedom.
In terms of internal projects gmail, and local maps comes to mind. If your going to call everything that did not work a moonshot then by definition no. However, it's only a failure when they give up so self driving cars are rather undecided at this point, and theses projects help recruiting which has non obvious benefit.
I think with the increased visibility of scientific research to the general public, it's less that science needs to stop accepting unrepeated results, but instead the paper process needs to be updated to reflect the new level of availability, and journal databases need better relationship views between papers and repeated tests.

As an outsider looking in on the Scientific process, I am not really sure how applicable my opinions are, but I see these as useful changes.

Basically, in reverse order, my suggestions for science to adopt are as follows:

Papers in databases need to have fields related to reproduction studies, and it needs to start becoming a prideful part of the scientific process; just as there is a lot of pride and money, researchers should start to thump their chest based on the reproducibility of their work, actively seeking out contemporaries and requesting a reproduction study as part of the pubilshing process, and subsequently updating.

The papers published themselves should take a moment (perhaps no more than a paragraph) to include a "for media" section that outlines the "do's and don't's" on reporting on the research. For example, cancer research should clearly state examples of acceptable understandings in lay person terms as a sort of catch for sloppy reporting. Something like "Do not write "cure for cancer found" or "Effective treatment", instead write "progress made, etc". Basically put a sucker punch to outlandish headlines and reporting right in the paper itself, and let journalists who want to be sensationalist embarrass themselves.

This seems like two very simple acts that could raise the bar for science a bit.
You're certainly not the only one. My first thought was that Yelp would only be doing this so they could sell removal of the sued-customer flag to companies.
As long as you provide a detailed enough description of the source of your dataset that I can reproduce it myself then that is fine. So in your first case tell me what criteria you used to select your tweets and in the second tell me where to send my $1000 and what to ask for.
Currently no, soon yes.

Currently no classloader is needed to run Scala code.

However, in order to solve binary compatibility once and for all, Scala 3 (aka Dotty) adds an extra bytecode layer on top of Java bytecode.

Details at https://d-d.me/talks/scaladays2015
All users of an open source program would benefit, if more companies would contribute to that open source program. In that sense, encouraging companies to contribute is helping consumers.

A lot of companies are very open source friendly these days and consequently are happy to open source parts of their software stack. Using a BSD type license makes this very easy. GPL however, forces companies to open source the whole software stack and that is very often not possible for companies, be it that they need to make money by selling the software, or that some code parts contain trade secrets or that they do have some code parts licensed themselves.
> One part of science is observation. Including observations which cannot be, or at least have not been, repeated. For example, consider a rare event in astronomy which has only been detected once. Is that science? I say it is. But it's surely not repeatable.

First off, you can accept the observation at face value as an observation, but conclusions drawn from the claims which have no other support or means of verification should not be accepted and would not be accepted. Fortunately, most of the time even if something is initially sparked by a very rare occurrence, it will have some kind of implications that are verifiable by some other means other than just waiting for something to happen in space.

But even something that is rare and relies on observation, like gravitational waves, we have already been able to identify more than one occurrence.

> Some experiments are immoral to repeat. For example, in a drug trial you may find that 95% survive with a given treatment, while only 5% survive with the placebo.

What's more immoral, releasing a drug that's only had one test, even a striking one, on the public as a miracle cure that you have not truly verified or performing another test to actually be sure of your claims before you release it?

> Who among you is going to argue that someone else needs to repeat that experiment before we regard it as a proper scientific result?

That's how science works. If something is not independently repeatable and verifiable then science breaks down. Look at the recent EM drive. Most scientists in the field were skeptical of it, and once it was finally attempted to be independently verified the problems were found.

Independent verification is the cornerstone of science and what makes it different from bogus claims by charlatans.
Suggest you look for an opening on JP Morgan's Athena project, or Bank of America Merrill Lynch Quartz. Both those platforms are C++ on the inside with Python APIs. The originators have gone independent here: http://www.wsq.io/about-us/ The site says they're hiring.
Adaptations in a couple millennia? I doubt it.

I don't think there's much a living being can do to become more resistant to radiations; the most effective trick seems to be being small.
I was simply suggesting what we all learn in medical school and residency: to appropriately evaluate clinical studies. Just don't think most doctors do.

Let me give you an example of how I approach things. The guidelines for acute pancreatitis recommend using a fluid called LR instead of NS for volume resuscitation. This is based on an single study that included 10 patients and simply noted slightly better lab numbers; there was no difference in clinical outcome. Lots of problems with that study, right (small, underpowered, confounders, validity issues, etc)? However, there's no major disadvantage for using LR in those patients (unless hyperkalemia is a concern), so I use it since it might have a benefit.

This is a very simple example. It gets much more complicated than that.

"Probably" is one of favorite words in medicine, btw :).
Before I started my professional career I used to believe that the stories on the daily wtf were fiction.
GAME-BNW
It probably is not “for no reason” – the reason is that the page contains advertising and tracking scripts. The page owner is even willing to lie (pretending that JS is necessary is a flat-out lie if the page works fine without any JS features) so that users enable JS and run those.

In 2013, I created a program to visualize what hosts a web site notifies when it is loaded http://daten.dieweltistgarnichtso.net/src/list-web-bugs.py – you can see the output for the article here: http://daten.dieweltistgarnichtso.net/pics/graphs/web-bugs/w...
Those are both good but the key here is the media needs to understand that scientific papers that have not been independently verified are in a "maybe" state.

Of course, they probably do know this and just choose to ignore it because "Unverified Study that MIGHT Point to M&M's Being Good For You" won't get as many clicks as "M&M's Are Good For You Says New Study!"
The important question is whether something was designated a "moonshot" before it succeeded or failed, thus giving us an unbiased sample.
Great points, thanks!
Fentury – personal finance adviser making money management an everyday habit
IMF admits euro problems and apologises for the immolation of Greece
Reading these kinds of stories, I can't help but reflect on how many days of my life spent dealing with crap similar to this I'm never getting back. Hair stands on the back of my neck, literally.
Omega2: $5 Linux Dev Board with WiFi
First-class sum- and product-types for Haskell
I've been trying to switch from VirtualBox to Hyper-V twice to use Docker for Windows, but always hit the same wall when using a desktop Linux guest: no 3D acceleration, no resolution scaling, no shared clipboard.
At the bottom of that page I was half expecting to see a 'This page best Viewed in Netscape 2.0' button! ;)
I also wouldn't call most of us scientists, though many at university hospitals are.

I think the problem is that it's simpler to just take a study's conclusion and believe it. Because hey, it's peer-reviewed and in the NEJM! Easy!

The adverse reaction I described is normal in medicine when you oppose the status quo. That's probably true in other professions and industries.
Took me years before thinking of variables that way and mathematical expressions are constraints over sets, formulas expressing relations of interests that way.
Raw sockets? ICMP? AF_UNIX? netlink? IPsec? tun/tap devices (under Linux)? Pick any.
My Chrome still has a radio button (admittedly not a checkbox...) that will disable javascript on all sites.

There's a distinction to be made between content sites and application sites. It's really just too much work to try to make an application fall back to plain HTML, but for a content-centered site, like a blog, a news site, etc, it's not that hard to do things right and not require JS.
It certainly worth a time I've spent to read it, even if I'm not a beginner. There are parts, that will be useful for a reverse engineer of every level.
UGH.
Scientists are not getting funds to repeat result.
Kickstarter’s Impact on the Creative Economy
Simulating Extreme Spacetimes
Having wasted time trying to replicate someone else's results who 'lost' their code, I agree! Maybe repeating the experiment should be part of the peer review.
another non-reader. i picked out the main points the writer specified.
This is legitimately why we don't touch GPL code with a ten foot stick. BSD/MIT are awesome however.
Unfortunately, there is no easy way to do it. Confirmation studies are not easily accepted by impactful journals/conferences, thus nearly nobody bothers to do them. Even if there is one, it can be surprisingly hard to find it.

As a point of anecdata: my wife's master thesis was a confirmation study of using LLDA for face recognition. I remember seeing it included in some book by the university press. I gave up Googling for it after 5 minutes.
I agree in principle. There are a few concerns:

1. How should we receive costly research that took special equipment and lots of time to develop and cultivate? I.e., CERN?

2. A lot of research is published, ignored, and then rediscovered. In this case, we may want to accept the research until it cannot be repeated (i.e., in another journal publication).

3. Reviewers of academic publications probably are not qualified or have the time to recreate all scientific research.

4. Isn't the academic system at its core kinda... broken?
Put your code where your mouth is
It implies no such thing. "patriarchy" is a descriptive term in social science and it has nothing to do with fault or blame. We don't choose the society we're born into and obviously we're not responsible for those things that are out of our control. We should of course be held accountable for the choices we make, especially when those choices hurt others.
Sadly, no, they're using the name "Docker for Windows" to refer to the Docker-on-Linux-in-a-VM-on-Windows version.

Real native Windows containers and a Docker shim to manage them are coming: [1] but not released yet.

[1] https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/virtualization/windowsconta...
By moonshots, I'm referring specifically to projects that came out of the "Other Bets" division. That division specifically invests in projects that are "out there." From what I hear, realistic products like gmail and maps came out of the 20% time and other product-divisions, not the "Other Bets" division.
For 200$/month.
I am almost positive that is completely incorrect. Can you give any example of Docker being used to isolate Windows software?
I honestly believe people don't like glasses (in general, I'm not speaking of the geek crowd). Also, VR isn't a big thing yet.

Please be cautious with analogies, because often there's no logic in them. For example, in this case, we can further dumb it down to: people like to eat but they don't want to hold a spoon. With all respect, an analogy just makes no sense. I was talking about glasses specifically.
Too anxious to interview.
Dark Patterns are designed to trick you (and they’re all over the Web)
My view on that is that Nokia has always been a hardware company with a weak software culture. They weren't able to write software of the complexity required to compete with iOS, so they acquired Symbian first (yes they did that after iPhone was already in the market) and Qt later. Neither avenue produced something that could compete on the market fast enough, so the board hired Elop to fix it with Windows Mobile.
After brexit the EU has to prove that it is not a lights on and nobody home situation.
So, $1 of public funding triggers public code release? Or is there a threshold?

No one has been able to tell me why the need for reproducibility requires software freedom.

Consider the program 'nauty'. It is available in source code form for anyone to review, but it cannot be used for military purposes. That's not free, certainly. But isn't that enough to call it good science?

Similarly, consider the clause "only for use in verifying the result of paper X". That's also not free. But it serves the goal of letting others be able to verify X.

Also, you haven't gone far enough. It's not only the license that matters, but access. You have to mandate that either anyone can get access to the code for no/low cost for some years (since I can sell my GPL'ed software for $30,000 or take down the download link once published), or link publication with a required submission to some repository with the mission of keeping all that source and data around, available to anyone, at no cost.
A company --rather than push back and follow the expensive legal route with an (even slightly) uncertain, delayed outcome-- is much more inclined to try to settle by paying some amount of money.
Of course, in following the typical blackmail scenario, this makes the company even more vulnerable to subsequent similar requests.

Regarding what can be disclosed, my understanding is the same as of DannyBee above (not first-hand knowledge, obviously), so I cannot say whether this is the modus operandi in case here.
Perhaps by comparing to the population on ISS because the space station is still at least partially protected by Earth's magnetic field?
Seems like an obvious thing for Amazon to check out then ban all reviews and or products on these services.
That sounds more like a Scala issue than anything else. A Java Hello World app runs in about 50 msec.
Reminds me of the Nifty Fifty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nifty_Fifty

They were supposed to be big buy and hold forever stocks. Interestingly looking back if you had bought and held for decades you would have done ok with the food type ones - McD and Coke and poorly with tech like DEC and Kodak. It's hard to build a tech company that will still be good 30 years later.
So many things can go wrong. But how do you assess, where to draw a line? What could be used as a guiding light?

Currently I try to use the following scenario as orientation: If a completely new developer would walk in and wanted to install or build or contribute to a current system/project, how much I would have to explain to this person? How many, "yes, true, but only if" style statements would I need to make?

The optimum here is, that a developer will contribute, without me needing to explain or motivate anything.

Do you use a certain approach? How would you describe it?
"Isn't the academic system at its core kinda... broken?"

can your elaborate on what you mean?
As mentioned in the article and countless times on HN:

Many people in Silicon Valley are biased against Lyft because they think that ride-sharing will be a winner-takes-all market. They are probably wrong. Once a ride-sharing company gets to a certain level of reliability and waiting times are short enough, there is little benefit to using one service over another. Uber and Lyft will both be able to claim a lead in lots of cities, and both will be around for a while.

Furthermore, if you live in a city with both, it's not uncommon to talk with drivers who work for both services.

I will also add that the need for expansion has toned down the quirkiness of Lyft from when they first out a few years back. The giant furry mustache was replaced. No more fist bumps. And the drivers I encounter are generally less talkative and charismatic. That's not meant to criticize the company, but AFAIC, there is just a lot less separating the two companies.

So playing it slow and sane might be second in the long run, but if they keep expanding I don't see them not eating into Uber's market and climbing their way up. Well, unless of course Uber's investment into driverless cars is able to come to fruition within our lifetime.
Boko Haram Attacks UN Officials in Bama (Photos)
I think the problem with mimmapping bump maps is that it effectively smooths the surface, so you loose the bump effect.
It would be easy for an individual to fool but could probably make good capture/recapture estimates of populations in an area.
I don't think so. That's what Jeffery Snover is working on in Server 2016 with Windows nano server.

Unless something has changed since the last time I checked, The WindowsServerCore docker image was not generally available yet and requires server2016 (I think it was TP6 the last time I checked)

Docker, to my knowledge, is still exclusively Linux flavors. (Though I'm happy to be corrected if someone knows more than me)
The moment someone mention dynamic linking and GPL is the point where one need to think about the law rather than computer technology. Dynamic linking does not exist in the definition of derivative work, and the legal concept is only used by the FSF as a public guideline on where to draw the line (and thus when they will enforce the license).

What you will have to ask is, what will a non-technical judge think is one work with different labeled parts, or two separated works that are interacting. Questions like "If I remove one, do I still have a something that make sense to call a work?", "how was it created and what was the intention of the creator", "how would a end-user perceive the result", and in many jurisdictions, "what is the industry standard" (judges has shown a tendency to avoid decision which would cause disruption in the market).

> let's say a company decides to make a proprietary fork of a GPL software application

If they intentionally trying to go against the wishes of the author, its likely infringing the license regardless if you use technology X or technology Y.
Apple was not “forced” to abandon GPLv3 software. GPLv3 contains two key provisions Apple seems to have a problem with: It forbids locking down hardware so that users cannot actually run software they want (tivoization) and it forbids patent lawsuits against users of the GPLv3 software. Apple's hostility towards GPLv3 very likely has nothing to do with dynamic linking.
I am not sure whether I understood it correctly, but the secondary radiation (when a high energy particle hits the shielding, a shower of secondary particles rains on the unfortunate passenger) seems to physically hurt parts of the body. Similar to boiling small random volumes inside the body. And the aortic arch seems to be very sensitive to such lesions.
Lawsuits are absolutely governed by the constitution. You are using the force of the government to bring about your will. So the first amendment absolutely factors into how a speech related lawsuit plays out.

-Not a lawyer. Not legal advice-
"Probably" is one of favorite words in medicine, btw :).

Right as it should. If somebody answers my question by "It depends", then I know I'm in good company!
Might not apply where you are, but in my state, if you sit at a red light for that length of time, with no traffic coming the other way, it is legal to ignore the light and go anyway - basically treating the light like a four-way stop sign.
This has worked and still works for technology, but is not how basic science research was done. There's never been "enough" money for sciences, nor they ever been allocated in a manner agreeable to all parties. For a long time, research was either a gentleman's hobby or a side project under auspices of unsuspecting donor. Lagrange has developed variational calculus while doing his artillery school tenure. Einstein's annus mirabilis happened at his stint in Swiss patent office.
If we can trust in Alexa, reddit is #26 globally and #9 in the US. Even with some error margin, that's damn mainstream.
What problems do you have with cmake and kernel images?