skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Surely customers travelling to new cities/countries they don't know is significant behaviour?
Consulting companies may need to inflate staff CVs to be competitive with other consulting companies in the eyes of clients, even if they internally know it's bullshit.
> Specifically vectors and maps. These exist all over the place, but no where (in my experience) are they as pain-free as clojure.

You don't use vectors very much on the BEAM in general, so I wouldn't consider this very important. Maps are more popular, but have a complicated relationship with records and records have, due to historical reasons, not seen much light on the BEAM in general until lately.

Tuples, which you could use as vectors, sort of, can be written as follows:

(tuple 'hey 'ho "let's go") <-> #(hey ho "let's go")

Tuples are infinitely more important than maps on the BEAM and so they deserve special syntax.

I think insisting that everything should be like Clojure is a great way to not really see anything different. While I understand that your idea is that "everything else should see what's so great about Clojure", maybe you could take that to heart as well.

Edit, addition: I wonder what the stats on posts starting with "I'm/As a Clojure fan..." are. If someone is an Archlinux user, a vegan, a crossfitter and a Clojure user, which do they tell you first?
It's not being updated at all. You are looking at the version in ports. This can be updated to a GPLv3 version (as 4.9.3 is a GPLv3 version) just fine. I don't know why it isn't; perhaps there's some porting problem and no or little demand. The version 4.9.3 is the same version that was present in OpenBSD 5.9 and probably several releases back. The system GCC is 4.2.1 plus OpenBSD patches. It has been for some time. This will not be updated to a GPLv3 compiler.
Suggestion for better title:

"The tessellate polygon drawing algorithm"
Seems similar to how I mentioned I created an outline of topics I wanted to cover. I can turn these into really small modules, just pick one, and go.
Using someone's identity is only illegal if you do it without their knowledge/permission. Valets don't need to sign a power of attorney contract in order to use your keys to park your car.

It's not really relevant to this case.
He didn't access a computer, he requested information from the computer, over a public channel, which was given.

This is a semantic difference so it doesn't matter that the CFAA that they consider the crime "intentionally accessing a computer without authorization" - he didn't remote desktop to the machine and log in and access the file system and get information. He used the OAuth protocol which is afforded over public channels exactly as prescribed to say "This user has granted me access to this information, please give it to me" and Facebook has said "here you go"...

This is akin to asking for the information, being issued a cease and desist to prevent you from asking for it again and then using the Freedom of Information Act to request information and subsequently being arrested for being in possession of that information on the grounds that you illegally obtained that information by breaking and entering and accessing files you weren't authorized to access... which you can see is clearly not true.
its a choice. Create your own startup, get lucky, sell your company for big money.

Easy.
I'm closer to 45 than 25 these days and couldn't agree more. Took years to build up the experience I thought I had at 25, still a lot more to learn, wouldn't trade it for the world.
PG Phriday: The Audacity of NoSQL
I feel like that should be negligence on the HOSTs part. If you have sensitive data, you often have a legal obligation (HIPPA, or whatever domain applicable law) to protect that information. Having it trivially harvested through a URL parameter is negligence in that light.
You're right - it's very much an American thing. Maybe not exclusive to the US, and it may vary by state or background, but still very common there from my experience with family and friends.

In American culture, unless you're financially constrained, you grow up with someone hammering down the idea that you have to be doing something productive and getting better 100% of the time. If you're a kid, you have to be involved in clubs or teams for everything. You have to make friends. You have to be good, you have to be popular. You have to get awards. You have to play a couple of sports competitively. On holidays, you have to go to summer camp, shock full of controlled activities. You have to do a lot of "voluntary" work because it will look good in your resume, not because it's helping someone [1].

As a result, your schedule is controlled, you are being judged 100% of the time, and the loudest, more outwardly energetic people are the ones who strive. The idea is that if you're not having Mandatory Fun, you're doing something wrong.

It creates this idealistic culture where everyone is trying to be better all the time, or pretending they are. The reality is that most people live in a constant state of anxiety. For the most part, it's very hard for kids to find what they like, and get better at it by sheer initiative; they never have time to do it. Instead, they do what they do because they're told to.

Little surprise kids have no time for introspection, and that's the way people can actually get better.

Science is just starting to understand that Rest is not Idleness [2]. The idea is not new [3]. But our culture, specially the fast-moving tech culture, is not ready for it.

[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/05/college-admissions-...

[2] http://pps.sagepub.com/content/7/4/352

[3] https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozio_creativo
Find better employers.

The game these employers have set up is unwinnable. Don't play it.
> You are not presenting a quantitative basis for a change. That "work me out of a design" is as diminishing as direct request.

First, you are still thinking in terms of a top-down decision where the boss has to choose between deciding what is best, or delegating that with no further input, whereas I'm talking about creating a collaborative dialogue which may or may not result in change at all.

> Please, answer to me why are you concerned with such minutiae next to project completion? Is the Statement of Work you have prepared with designer not detailed enough?

I'm describing a generalised approach based on the examples in the article. If you think this is a literal example of what to focus on, then I might as well throw back at you that what you are describing with SOWs sounds a lot like the fixed, rigid waterfall approach where everything is set in stone at the start, which in the words of Winston Royce himself "is doomed to fail".[0]

Which brings me to my second point: for the sake of the example I'm assuming here that this is not a bike-shedding situation where a manager just wants to change something for the sake of feeling like they added something to the conversation (in which case your only hope is to add something so trivial that it functions as a lightning rod - see the Duck story of Battle Chess[1]).

Let's assume that the boss in this scenario has a reason to want to change something better than bike-shedding. Whether it's a good or bad one is to be determined. Instead of assuming either, the best option then is to engage in a (brief) dialogue to figure out said reason. The designer, being the expert, should be the best person to guide the boss and help decide the validity of said input.

So the goal of this conversation is not to propose a change to "blue and huge". The goal is to approach the design from the point of view of the designer; focussing on the points that still somehow feel uneasy is just efficient since that is most relevant. By asking the designer to work us through the design process we get to ignore the first gut-feeling "solutions", letting the designer keep ownership and acknowledging that they know what they are doing.

If you approach the conversation like this, most of the time it will quickly become obvious that that one of the parties forgot to take something into account: maybe the shade of blue would align more with company colours, despite not popping out as nicely; or maybe it's the opposite: the darker shade would look better, but the designer decided being consistent with the overall look of the company was more important. Furthermore, discussions like this are immensely helpful for making it clear to the designer what metters most to the client. In the end the designer can walk away with a better understanding of their client's wishes: "ok, I'll have to figure out a new balance between aligning with the the company colours while still having some pop in the overall look - and I have a bit more leeway than I originally thought."

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCns726nBhQ&t=8m45s

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_Chess#Development
So you're saying that a business should be able to deny service to any customer for any reason?

(For the record, I agree)
I've felt this same frustration with POWER for what feels like forever. I'd love to build and run a POWER desktop system, but traditionally there hasn't been a readily available, standard form-factor, somewhat inexpensive motherboard that you could just order up from Tyan or whoever. On and off over the years there's been a lot of talk about how this company or that was going to build a standard ATX motherboard for POWER cpu's, but they seem to never materialize, or if they do, they're insanely expensive, or something which keeps the whole idea just out of reach.

This most recent push for openness in the POWER world might actually change that though. Tyan does have a kinda-sorta not-too-expensive POWER8 based server available, and there was a document floating around a while back listing all the companies who were committing to build machines, motherboards, etc. based on POWER8. As I recall, there were a lot of names on the list, which is encouraging.

But still... why can't we hit up NewEgg and order an ATX motherboard, a CPU and some RAM for, say, $1000.00 or less? sigh
True.

One should also be vary of the other extreme:
There are people that switch their favorite language every three months, and insist that they use the latest one for their day job. If you allow it, it may lead to lot of wasted time, small wars within your team, and so on.
Sorting Lists
Hazelcast and Heimdall Release Joint Solution
Google Trends: Pokemon More Relevant Than Trump, Clinton
I've spent a long time debating with VLIW haters (that I presume you are with), but I'd love to see any citations you have for your claim that my causality is reversed, as I have a ton of evidence (to be fair not published yet) going for my side. While not as generally applicable as our architecture, you can take a look at basically any DSP from the past 15 years and see that VLIW works great from a performance and efficiency standpoint when your data is in a constrained form. We're showing that a compiler can structure a lot of different types of data (and the code required to actually operate on it) effectively if there are enough constraints on the hardware. Fairly pointless to try to convince you without documentation on hand for all parties, but hope you'll take a look in a couple of months.

As far as market, we are going after a decent sized market where the customers care the most about efficiency and performance, and are not only willing but very eager to switch their current solutions for whatever is best. As the typical startup claims, we are able to do it for a fraction of the cost and in a fraction of the time as one of the big guys, and have a solution that is 10x better than is out there. NVIDIA boasts that they spent $1 Billion developing the Pascal architecture, with them selling the Tesla series GPUs for it at $5,000+ a unit. We've shown we can prototype something that can theoretically beat it for under $2 million, and our hope/bet is that we can take it to market (and actually beat it by an order of magnitude) for less than $25 million. That's just HPC, which doesn't include the very interesting high end DSP area that is now using very expensive and power hungry FPGAs for wireless baseband solutions which we think are a very good fit for us.
How people buy your product
Isolated anecdote, but I work on a JVM based language and my colleague is having to write a register allocator because our input language is written in SSA form and so has a huge number of locals in methods. We need to map these onto a smaller number of JVM locals (like register) otherwise the JVM frames are huge.

Also, if you aren't writing a register allocator because you're using the JVM or LLVM, then someone else needs to on your behalf. We can't forget these skills.
In short, yes. You give it an example of the types involved. Instead of "hi" -> "HI" you give String -> String.
They are taking issue with the term "toxin" - not the functionality of the lymphatic system. Their comment explicitly said `metabolic byproduct or waste, nothing to do with "toxins"`.
I don't think that is passive aggressive at all. In fact, I say stuff like that all the time, and mean it, because I do like what people come up with and want to know how they did it. How else would you express that?
The point is, it's also outside the reach of the public internet, so you can't get "proper" HTTPS anyway (unless you get a custom root CA). I fail to see the danger added in making this ip "Secure". Suddenly, a MITM-ing actor could modify the responses to do some webrtc and ask the user for his geoloc. I don't think it's that much more dangerous.

And let's not mention the fact you can get a free HTTPS with let's encrypt, MITM an existing 10.0.0.X connection and serve a 301 to your https-enabled domain name.

My use-case is rather simple : I host a few things at home, and I've had to install a root CA on every device just because I can't do webrtc otherwise.

I could get a letsencrypt certificate for a domain name, but honestly that sucks.
This is the second most popular argument in a unauthorized access threads. But what it suggests is a form of special pleading for the Internet. It's not an unusual situation in criminal law for the negligence of a victim (or a victim's agent) to interact with the malice of a criminal. What is unusual --- I think unprecedented, in fact --- is for the victim's negligence to negate criminal culpability.

Put simply: sure, create civil liability for companies who deploy insecure software (watch how fun it becomes to be an indie software developer!). That shouldn't change any part of criminal law.
Encryption Key Management Best Practices
>Where in the US were you that was still imprinting in 2001?

-The east coast, Cape Cod area - if I remember correctly, I was having dinner in Falmouth or perhaps in Woods Hole when the imprinting device appeared. Could have been backup for their normal credit card machine, though - didn't think to ask at the time.
You can't know if a public installation of an open source project is actually just running the code that you see either. Hosted open source projects have no security benefits over proprietary services.

And duckduckgo is not owned by yahoo. It has partnerships with yahoo, bing and yandex to use their search databases.
Guess you are waiting for TALOS to be released? Bit too expensive though.

https://www.raptorengineering.com/TALOS/prerelease.php
It sounds like we agree that lexically scoped immutable values are easier to understand, either precisely or with fuzzy metaphors. I'm not sure what "ideal" FP is or how it might have a certain "mathematical view of the world". The features I mentioned are just a subset of semantics that every high-level language programmer already knows, but are pointlessly hobbled in popular languages.

Why should expressing something basic like a tagged union require a detour through the quirks of a particular object system? Ditto for polymorphism, modularity, etc, etc. Clearly we disagree on how useful objects really are in practice, fine. Why not add these domain-specific features on top of a core language with simple semantics? It worked fine for lisps. Luckily, after a couple of decades of "everything is an object!" nonsense, that seems to be where newer languages (Rust, Swift) are headed.
I use bropages ( http://bropages.org/ ) most of the time, and use man if it doesn't have the entry.
It's from a few years ago but here is Michael Abrash's experience with working at valve http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/abrash/valve-how-i-got-here-w... + some interesting tibits about his past at Id and MS.
discussion here: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/38563315/how-do-people-st...
What if Zuckerberg had received a cease and desist letter when he was accessing computers without authorization at Harvard?

Before any student willingly sent him personal information, he had to exfiltrate such information i.e. photos of other students so other students would be compelled to look at websites he created using said photos.

He did eventually receive a cease and desist letter, and he ignored it. But of course it was not from the people charged with protecting students' personal information nor the students themselves. You know the story.

As with Google, under today's culture it's acceptable for Facebook to aggressively collect personal information in bulk and pay little attention to obtaining permissions, but it is not acceptable for anyone to attempt to collect information in bulk from Google or Facebook. This make no sense to me, but I gues I am just obtuse.

Maybe what Kerr is wondering is when the necessity of sending costly snail mail cease and desist letters will give way to some less expensive digital form of notice. When that happens, the threat of the CFAA can be used on a mass scale. Perhaps then we would see it in every Terms of Service. Maybe we could create a new HTTP response code: HTTP/1.1 606 CFAA Notice.
"We were having a difficult time recruiting folks. We would interview very talented people but they would be rejected by the old timers at Valve as not fitting the culture."

This sounds like a terrible environment to develop in.
If you are going to have them on your team for 3 years, do the first two weeks matter?

Where I work the first two weeks are explicitly training. You will not contribute to the bottom line at all, even if you are an expert already. And sometimes this feels like not enough.
No. I never said experience is a negative, but I can see how it was implied. I understand where he's coming from, because there are people who are stuck in their ways. That's not an experience issue - that's a people issue.
Olympic games: puddles, gas leaking in the official accommodations
Can you use lambda calculus to prove the correctness of quicksort? :-)
It is interesting that Wes McKinney said that he had started Pandas so that R wouldn't dominate data science. (I am paraphrasing, but I think it was at the beginning of his pandas book).

Now I happen to be a pandas person myself, and I am glad he did it. If someone had advised Wes not to spend his time on python and just focused on making R better, I would hope he would not have listened to that person.
> there's something in their mind that makes them think that if their team gets something done without their involvement, then that makes them redundant

I don't think that's the intent. I think it's more like, "I'm not doing my job if all I do is rubber stamp". If the manager isn't helping the team to get better work done, then they are redundant. Nitpicky comments are probably not the way to help the team, but if I had a manager who just said "sounds good" every time I presented an idea or a piece of work, I wouldn't interpret that as empowering in any sense. I'd interpret it as "this guy doesn't even care".

>I just gave this 1 minutes thought and 30 seconds of feedback, do I want this person to go off and do a few hours more work based on that off-the-cuff remark?

It depends a lot on who the comment is being given to. I've got people on my team that I can make an off the cuff suggestion to, and they'll consider it just as if it came from any other senior person. I've got other people who will take an off the cuff suggestion from me and run with it for a week. I have to be much more cautious with my suggestions to the latter.
Among the Many Hardest Problems in Computer Science Are Such Things As…
... and Duck Hunt! :P
This.

Feedback too often falls into the "I need to say something not great/bad, so we keep improving", instead of listening when someone asks for support.

People performs better when confident their contribution is important and are confortable asking for help when needed.
And that state is a completely made up mathematical artifact. The only thing real on QM are measurements.

Besides, the Schrodinger equation does not predict how the state will evolve after a measurement is done. That's the entire problem.
FWIW, Marissa was essentially a developer. She taught CS at Stanford and majored in Symbolic Systems, which is closely related.
The Questions That Matter
What works is going to be based on the individuals on the team, the business culture, and available resources. My advice is to pick something focused on a shared positive experience, be open with the team about the intent and honest about the possibility that it might fail and admit the fear that it might seem silly.

On the other hand, if the culture is a constant deathmarch of deadlines, then it is critical to push the deadlines back more days than are given to teambuilding. Otherwise, it's not so much a waste of time from a business perspective as it is from a personal one.

Good luck.
Yahoo retains a market cap of $36 billion. The reason Verizon paid only $5 billion is that Yahoo Japan and Alibaba are not part of the deal.

> Yahoo owns about 35 percent of Yahoo Japan and 15 percent of Alibaba, two overseas companies that have long dwarfed Yahoo in size.
Ultibo may soon be working in 64-bit mode: https://ultibo.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=60
I don't think companies are hiring by keyword. It's the clueless tech recruiters filtering out candidates by keyword.
The "gamification" aspect is interesting but the overall usage isn't too surprising. When Google split Pay and Wallet into two apps I kept both but whereas I stopped using Pay - the part for buying stuff at the store - for the most part (never seems to work properly on my phone) I use Wallet - the part for sending money to people - all the time.

I live with my SO and we each have various bills in our name. Rather than setting up additional profiles on each account, when a bill is due, one of us pays it and tells the other person their share. A quick email with attached funds or fire up the mobile app to send funds and the money is available immediately in the other person's Wallet and can be used for Googly stuff or transferred to their checking account without any fees.

Going out for drinks or dinner and splitting across credit cards is a pain in the ass or it turns out they only take cash and only one person has cash? One person pays, the rest of us just open the Wallet app and send them our share.

It really is useful and convenient. Honestly the only complaint I have is that they recently discontinued the physical Wallet card. That made it easy to draw off those funds at an ATM or use it as a credit card (see earlier point about Pay app not always working properly).

It's one of those things that I'd never have expected to use but it's sort of like a PayPal that doesn't terribly suck.
Hm, fair enough. Thanks for the analysis!
Without logging in, someone could enumerate all of these IDs and opt out everyone. This at least protects some of their spying.
Everything Is 4 in English Network Graph
Not arguing that your statement is right or wrong, but I suggest checking out Spyder for python. I go back and forth between the two, and though I hate the syntactic gear shift, they are quite similar.