skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> almost no one in UK accepts signature-only cards

> terminals which can take magnetic-strips are just super rare and usually not supported even if the machine has them.

I've not found this to be the case. I used a non-chip US card here in the UK extensively over the last year or so, and I've never once encountered a merchant that didn't want to take my card, nor a terminal that didn't read magnetic strips.

I do find people at checkouts to be a little surprised by someone having to swipe & sign, since that's quite rare now. And often they had trouble finding a pen for me to sign with :) But I was always able to complete the transaction nonetheless.
I agree with you.

The point I was trying to make is this: in the example you gave ("waiting to install software") or the one I gave (warming up a car on the driveway), you can get the system ready for action without creating any impact in a production environment.

The case of email servers is an unusual example where you have to do real world tests in order to make the system work. In most other situations, you can do everything before the rubber hits the road.

So, whilst this could have been handled much better, it's not a simple situation.
I wouldn't expect the assembly language level to be too far off from the common paradigms. Where I'd expect the software challenges to be would be in managing large amounts of memory, if the application programmer must manage shuffling data between the local scratchpad, specific locations in foreign scratchpads that must be (manually?) DMA'd around, and DRAMs.
Interesting.
Personally I can't sleep without laying on my stomach
I personally am in favor of decriminalizing cannabis use, as well as other drugs. Unfortunately, the debate regarding legalization is very polarized, and tends to not be based on scientific findings. One side tends to demonize cannabis while the other dismisses any information regarding negative effects. I believe there are many reasons for legalization, but mainly as a method for harm reduction, not because cannabis is some sort of a wonder-drug. Here are some studies regarding long-term negative effects:
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMra1402309

http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=24880...

Our findings in no way imply cannabis use causes suicidality. There are many other factors we couldn't analyze which could be the cause of this association. The reality is that these two behaviors (cannabis use and suicidality) are very complex, and this study is just one small step in the understanding of how these complex behaviors interact.

I believe proponents of cannabis legalization should look at all the data regarding long-term effects of cannabis with as little bias as possible - there are enough good reasons for legalization, it is dangerous to ignore scientific data regarding risks.
No it isn't. The example presented is the manager throwing in his two cents worth because they feel they ought to contribute something, which is what the article is arguing against.
> Though I'd say you can have a single market without much of the current EU-bureaucracy.

Having common legislation makes it easier to trade though. If you are (for example) a UK company, you can trade with 27 other countries under a common set of rules, reducing costs and increasing certainty. However, without this, the UK government must either a) bilaterally agree trade deals with these 27 countries, or b) else join EEA, with all the costs of EU membership and none of the benefits.

I definitely agree with your point about the legislation going too far though. Eurocrats in Brussels dreaming up nonsense that basically no EU citizens want, even those from "core" or strongly pro-EU countries. The phrase "an ever-closer union" is dangerous and unnecessary.
This would need to happen 10 times before I would think I don't own the project. If I can't take input, I should not have a job.
Gawker Media has 17.8M in the first five months of this year
You have press a button on it though. That's just missing the point.
I wonder how much of the process could be automated.
Yes, it's a bit of a "we didn't cross the border, the border crossed us!" situation.
To reinforce the sibling comment's point:
A very common pattern is when a const variable resides in non-writable memory (happens all the time in embedded), - if you attempt to write to it, you trigger a fault.

So if you cast away constness to conform to some API and then read the value, everything is fine (aside from questionable API design, of course). Modifying the value is another story, though.
What is the argument in favor of specifically allowing casting away const of pointers?
Using Vagrant and Ansible to spin up VMs. It's dead simple, pretty much just one command after copying a vagrantfile and playbook into working directory. Downside is that it takes a while to provision (updates, install commonly used programs and set up dev environment) a vm the first time (~10 minutes)
Micromanaging without just taking the work off their hands is obnoxious. If I had a micromanaging boss, I'd ask him if that project was one he'd prefer to take on himself.

As long as you don't mind being micromanaged yourself, then I suppose it's ok. I'd quit as soon as I could though in such a case. My manager giving me his 2 cents annoys me, I'm already stressed out and it just adds more on top of it all. Especially if it's not a suggestion that decreases work to be done, which it rarely is.
5% of people in Beijing/Shanghai/Shenzhen/Guangzhou don't have wechat? I suppose there are people who are still using QQ, but 5% seems high for wechat non users.
In my role as employee: I usually ask peers/possible end users for a bit of feedback. This is especially true when writing any kind of extended text for use with the Great British Public.

In my role as manager/mentor: I would always encourage colleagues to seek feedback from others, and have, in the past, even done training on giving and receiving feedback ('don't argue or defend, just listen record then see if the statements are actually meaningful later on).

Disclaimer: I work as a teacher. It is mostly content/activities/text designed for communication of steps in a process that I have to produce.
Why is this on HN?

TL;DR: Two tumlbs-users at two extremes spouting generalizations at each-other
Who are the AOL users? Are these folks in rural areas out of the reach of broadband? I've heard that there are still dial up users. This however would be odd with Verizon business plans as they have been divesting themselves of copper plant.
In Australia at least paypass/paywave is ultra common. Just wave and you're done. At least as fast as a swipe, and you don't even have to take your card out of the wallet.
There is this guy that writes about surviving the siege of Sarajevo. Google it, heaps of practical advice.
I thinks specific questions would work well. To use the bad boss example:

> I like it! Really good. Maybe just a darker shade of blue there, and change the word ‘giant’ to ‘huge’. Other than that, it’s great!

Let's change this to:

> I like it! Really good. Can you briefly work me through the design process behind it? I'm particularly interested in how you settled on the colours over there, and your ideas behind the word 'giant'.

(This honestly still needs a bit of work, but is getting there)

In this phrasing we show interest in the designer's work, respect their choices and don't assume our ideas are better than theirs. Instead we assume they know what they are doing and give them the space to convince us and also tell us what parts of the design do and do not matter to them, before engaging in giving proper feedback.

The big issue with the cited bad example is that the boss doesn't say why the design needs a darker shade of blue, or why the word ‘giant’ has to change to ‘huge’. It doesn't give any other feedback than "this is wrong, this is the fix". It's not open for debate.
Kids this days don't care about GBA at all. Why should they?

You have to understand that we emotionally connect with our past. You probably played with your friends on the GBA and shared great moments.

But kids today will make friends today with current hardware. For them GBA is obsolete.

Disclaimer: I volunteer teaching marginalized kids in immigrant and drug places. We do things like this:
https://www.raspberrypi.org/magpi/super-gamegirl/

That we print ourselves with 3d printers. But the machine is the least important thing of all. The important thing is making those kids feel a great time with each other and teach them other worlds and give them hope.

We use machines for our purposes, that is making them not enter drugs, crime and prostitution, but it is just a tool.
> The rule is: it always should be possible to manually reverse the transaction.

In a financial transaction there are two parties, and both must agree to a reversal. Especially if you want to reverse thousands of transactions. Unless there are special circumstances. But in no way will it always be possible to manually reverse a transaction.
I used to have the same feeling, until I realized that the popups were actually prompting me to the next step. I now depend on the popups (I "live in the debugger" as it were), and I get concerned when they don't happen at all.
While I think its true that the rPi has been good for arcade emulation as a social phenomenon - i.e. the market has expanded drastically - I think its disingenuous to think of the rPi as the main driver behind emulation becoming mainstream. Devices such as the GP2X, Caanoo, GPH Wiz and Open Pandora gaming consoles have contributed immensely to the subject of game emulation, and these systems have been around far longer than the rPi - which did indeed benefit from all the work done to make emulation work on these machines previously (they use a similar class of device) ..

I know for sure that dynamic recompilation, which is key to the way emulators gain the performance needed to run on these small machines, was well and truly happening in the scene before the rPi came along.

In my opinion, the rPi just delivered the last 5% of the missing equation: cheap, broad availability.
Thanks, that goes a long way toward an explanation. I'm still a bit surprised though that no compilers seem to complain even if we cast away the const from the properly const-qualified version. Here's the snippet I was playing with that tests all the variations:
https://godbolt.org/g/aaC4B7

I should have expected it, but if you define the "lying" function where the compiler can see the full definition (and don't specify -fno-inline), the loads are optimized out. It made me wonder though whether some variation of this bug might apply : http://www.playingwithpointers.com/ipo-and-derefinement.html
hm maybe you're right.

I saw one of the problems was, that I had higher math in German and some translations aren't straight forward (monoid -> halbgruppe) so I often thought things I knew were entirely new concepts.
Thanks - so the boat is actually buried before the change in river route, and it was the change in route that made the boat more accessible (and dry). I've got it now.
Yes, if a variable is declared const, casting away const-ness from a pointer to it and then writing to it is undefined.
There is no gold standard for confirming the existence of an exoplanet. Very different techniques are used by different groups based on the type and source of experimental data. Every method has its strengths and weaknesses, therefore, often planets detected by one method are then reconfirmed using another method applied to the same or new data. Here is a quote from Huang et a. (2015) https://arxiv.org/abs/1506.01776

"This planet was originally identified as a HATNet (Bakos et al. 2004) planetary candidate, was followed up by the TRES spectrograph on the FLWO 1.5 m telescope, and also by the KeplerCam imager on the FLWO 1.2 m telescope. Encouraged by these initial results, all pointing toward a bona fide planet orbiting the host star HAT-P-56, the target was proposed for K2 observations. Indeed, the very high quality photometric observations of K2 confirmed the transit, and also eliminated most of the possible blend scenarios."
I understand it's their "right" to censor whatever they want (well, the EU may disagree with that, though, given Google's dominant position in search, and the FTC should, too, but this is America, the land of "corporations are protected from punishment"), but it's also people's right to call them out on it. Just like it's people's right to call out Google [1], Facebook[2], and Twitter[3] for censoring links and hashtags for political reasons.

[1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12146920

[2] - http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/07/24/facebook-calls-wiki...

[3] - http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/23/twitter-user...
I think what was meant was that a winning solution to Amazon's problem is probably worth a lot more to them than $25000 to them. Eg. cents saved picking item would rack up to millions saved annually. Amazon bought Kiva for $775 million.[1] a top rank robotic picking and packing solution would be worth as much too.

[1] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-03-19/amazon-acq...
Monitor TLS with a Simple Bash Script and Mozilla's TLS Observatory
Our whole goal, as talked about in the software section of our website (and the ACM paper linked in it), is to have the scratchpads be entirely automated by our toolchain. While we want to allow for especially adventurous programmers to have full freedom with the scratchpads, existing and future programs written in C/C++/other languages supported in the future will handle memory allocation identically (from the programmers perspective) as existing architectures.

One other thing to point out is that our actually addressing of a cores local scratchpad, as well as "foreign" scratchpads of other cores on the same chip and/or any other attached chip is handled exactly the same. All memory operations are handled through the exact same load/store instructions as part of a global flat address map that is the same for all cores in a system (one or multiple chips interconnected).
I find objective and subjective sometimes difficult to discern.

To the manager, and specially founders and visionaries, it all may sound objective. Frequently, management literature advocates for an instinctive response as a perfectly justified, even inherently better, contribution.

Steve Jobs and Elon Musk's celebrated style of input comes to mind. Fast, truthful and direct, even if subjective. Sometimes one lacks the time to add insight to support an opinion. "Green instead of blue" may as well be sound feedback only the missing objectivity may be left as an exercise to the designer.
That sounds like "contactless" in the UK. Just swipe for transactions under £30, use your PIN if it's greater than that. It's very convenient, and I feel no need for a smartphone solution at this point.
You'd have to be more precise.

Because all the inventions or discoveries (or natural resources found on territories that are currently occupied by the muslims), would have mostly been still invented, discovered and of course existed in all hypotheses:

- whether there would be no Arab, (and therefore no Mohamed, and no islam). The discoveries and natural resources would still have occured, only more easily and earlier, by the same (non Arab) people, with even more intelligent scientists in those people, since now they wouldn't have been oppressed by islam.

- whether there would just be no muslim (because islam would not have exited). Then, assuming Arabs wouldn't have had such a deleterious role, invading, pillaging, enslaving, raping and killing everybody everywhere they go (but have limited themselves to a role of commerce, transport and exchange), then even more so, those discoveries and natural resources would still have occured, more easily and earlier, by the same (non Arab) people, with even more intelligent scientists in those people, since now they wouldn't have been oppressed by Arabs.
Zero content, 100% recycled filler. "Serverless great, because serverless great."
Saying "this is how to improve" is fine and all, but it's much more effective when the methods to improve are thought of by the person they're for. That's what coaching is, helping people realise the steps they need to take to get to the end goal.
> Except that there is a real advantage to using pure functional programming

That's only true for certain values of "real". In real "real" terms, the advantage is purely virtual - even very simple programs require hundreds of pages of proof. In effect, formal proofs are almost never done in real reality and the "advantage" remains purely virtual.

> what's new about it (privileging the first argument of each procedure

Multimethods, CLOS, Dylan?

> inheritance

Don't use it if you don't like it that much...

> lots of hidden mutable state

It's not hidden, it's encapsulated. Do you know Smalltalk? If not, you should try learning it; I liked Pharo very much. Look at Morphic, work with it for a while and you'll see the difference. You can also try devising purely functional equivalent of Morphic while you're at it (good luck!).
He said they were doing "cool work" in response to a post about a notoriously bad work culture. So that response was in fact on point.
>For example, you might ask "If you had to improve anything, what would you change?" It's an open-ended question that will encourage your team member to think.

Yeah. They think you're too weak-willed to just outright state your opinion and instead passively-aggressively point out what you really mean.
None that I know of, but I am not as updated on research of alcohol use disorders as I am with cannabis.
One interesting frontier is using machine learning methods for causal inference (the reason I have some vague knowledge of this is that my brother is working on this...). These may hopefully allow for some interesting analyses of existing data.
Here is a link for his seminar on causal inference for observational studies: http://www.cs.nyu.edu/~shalit/slides.pdf
In every team I've observed, there has been a steady stream of comments from staff about how one manager or other keeps asking for changes they see as pointless or negative, often accompanied by further complaints about how the manager in question never thinks their work is good enough.

I've seen this be the primary reason for high performing team members quitting. I think you underestimate substantially how much negative feelings this type of thing can produce.

It's not that you can never make suggestions. It's about making sure that you don't always make suggestions, and to avoid making suggestions unless the change you're asking for is important enough.

It's also not about people not being able to "handle a little nitpicking" but that even though they'll handle it, it often creates resentment and feelings of not being appreciated. And the team members that takes the most pride in their work are often most likely to be annoyed by this, and most likely to have plenty of options to move on.

Constantly giving people feedback that says "your work wasn't good enough for me as is" does not build trust. If you want to demonstrate that you trust their judgement, then do that by letting their judgement stand.
I've never used Facebook's API but I assume each server/app that wants to access it has an API key specific to that server/app. Couldn't Facebook just revoke the key? Or change its permissions?
To me, a website feels more like a newspaper than a physical space. Can the WaPo legally ban me from reading a copy I find whether its in a news-stand or on the metro?

We don't try to apply trespass laws to my eyeballs, instead we have copyright to prevent actions like reselling WaPo content.
Axiom Verge was unplayable on any settings I tried.
1 - That's the job of a linter

2 - automatically generated code has no obligation to be idiomatic

3 - If I had a cent for every time "idiomatic" code got in the way of readability I'd be a millionaire right now
Why Everyone’s Talking About Social Advertising
I've recently started to play around with hardware hacking, completely self taught. "Bench supply" isn't something I'm familiar with, are you able to explain a little more about what one is (I have looked online and still not entirely sure) and why I would need one?
The credit card fee is way higher due to fraud; the "insurance" and so on needs to be paid somehow. The margins asked in e.g. Netherlands to pay with a bank card are much lower than any credit card. Partially these low fees are a result of price restrictions set by the government many years back. Then eventually banks figured out they could make much more money with a low fee and huge volume.

Before chip+pin (in Netherlands), swipe+pin was used. For fraud the client was already responsible. In practice the bank almost always reimbursed the client. To restrict the fraud/skimming, cards are often restricted to be used in Europe only. A setting you can easily change.

Due to above, usually non-European tourists are now affected by skimming.

I prefer the tap to pay btw. Banks restrict which machines can get money off these cards and in practice it is usually the typing in of your PIN which is the biggest problem. Depending on the bank you can change the max tap to pay amount.
So if I have an honest opinion about something my coworker or employee asks me, I should not tell him, so that I won't hurt his feelings?

Is this kindergarten or grown-up life?

Especially in creative areas it pays to let other people look at your stuff and get feedback. It is simply too easy to just get stuck on a path.
Really? I had my Polish-issued signature-only card with me here in UK just a few years ago and the only place that would take it was the post office - every supermarket I tried just refused(I had one instance where I convinced the cashier to just try swiping the card and it did actually work, to her surprise, but in most places it was just a flat out no).
I think it is only modifying that non-const value that is undefined. If you use a nominally mutable value in a read-only way, then you are OK.

This is important because older libs that ignore (or abuse) const will often do read-only access to a char* or something. A nice example is that POSIX defines

int execv(const char *path, char *const argv[]);

That definition takes a constant pointer to variable chars! Worse, some people use the same signature for `main()` and also for libraries that parse `argv`. But none of them are actually allowed to vary those chars under Unix.
I don't think that's entirely correct though. Facebook allows people to give other services access to their accounts (and apparently to the things Power was doing). When those services then use that access to do the things they were authorised to do, Facebook can't suddenly complain.

They shouldn't have offered access to those services in the first place then. So the solution is to rescind access to the services that they don't want accessed, not sue the infringing entity for using the service they were granted access to.

Then again, I have too little information. I don't know what messages were sent, and where and how.
Those things are terribly outdated.

A modern Nintendo DS with a homebrew card is much much better and powerful, and all the low level you want or more, with better documentation than Graphing calculators(made by open source contributors).

If you don't care about low levelness any android smartphone have better capabilities.

I have smartphones and tablets with Ubuntu, that is without a doubt the best system for learning if you are serious into programming today.
Which purely capitalist nations are you thinking of?
I guess, without relocated number row & special characters that layout is no better for the programming than layouts mentioned in the comparison.

Personally, I remapped 567890-= onto RightShift+qwerdfas and it's most productive thing I've done with my typing in a year.