skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Oh, this reminds me.

I once worked for a company that used RDF for all configuration and scripting for one of its main applications.

Instead of using one of the standard methods of encoding RDF (turtle, XML, etc.) our main architect wrote his own. Specifically, he wrote an encoding based on Google Sheets. The triples were the row header, the column header, and the cell value. There were two special tables; one containing namespace aliases and one containing an index of all the tables in the spreadsheet.

To deploy, you published a Google Sheet to the web, copied the sheet key, and pasted it into a variable in the Java code's main() function (and we had a few different main classes for a few different deployment types).

Later on, he added support for encoding RDF in XLSX spreadsheets so we don't need an Internet connection to launch the app.

Let's just say that architect and I didn't get along (and he didn't get along with a good chunk of the devs either; multiple people I worked very well with quit during my time at that company largely because they couldn't get along with him).

If you want to see it, the code is open-source (some of their content is proprietary, but there's an open-source RDF store in the public repos that has the proprietary stuff removed and replaced with demo content). It forms part of the appdapter project on Assembla [0] (but only part of it; there's other random stuff in appdapter too), and there are some sample main() functions in the friendularity project on Asssembla [1] (friendularity was our repository of open-source main classes; they mostly just import stuff from other open-source projects and wrap it in a main()). Honestly, though, I didn't touch the appdapter part of the codebase when I worked there, and it's been a couple of years since I've worked there, so I don't think I can help much with running it. I think org.friendularity.bundle.demo.ccmio (or maybe org.friendularity.bundle.launcher.oglweb) is the relevant main project, but I don't remember too well, and I think some things have been refactored since we left.

[0] https://app.assembla.com/spaces/appdapter/subversion/source

[1] https://app.assembla.com/spaces/friendularity/subversion/sou...
They added a feature that impressively fails to interoperate with the rest of the world.

> Added well-known type protos (any.proto, empty.proto, timestamp.proto, duration.proto, etc.). Users can import and use these protos just like regular proto files. Additional runtime support are available for each language.

From timestamp.proto:

// A Timestamp represents a point in time independent of any time zone
// or calendar, represented as seconds and fractions of seconds at
// nanosecond resolution in UTC Epoch time. It is encoded using the
// Proleptic Gregorian Calendar which extends the Gregorian calendar
// backwards to year one. It is encoded assuming all minutes are 60
// seconds long, i.e. leap seconds are "smeared" so that no leap second
// table is needed for interpretation.

Nice, sort of -- all UTC times are representable. But you can't display the time in normal human-readable form without a leap-second table, and even their sample code is wrong is almost all cases:

// struct timeval tv;
// gettimeofday(&tv, NULL);
//
// Timestamp timestamp;
// timestamp.set_seconds(tv.tv_sec);
// timestamp.set_nanos(tv.tv_usec * 1000);

That's only right if you run your computer in Google time. And, damn it, Google time leaked out into public NTP the last time their was a leap second, breaking all kinds of things.

Sticking one's head in the sand and pretending there are no leap seconds is one thing, but designing a protocol that breaks interoperability with people who don't bury their heads in the sand is another thing entirely.

Edit: fixed formatting
I had to look up [1] the etymology of "moonshot" and thought it was interesting.

moon shot, n.2 One might think, “1961, moon shot;” this word relates to the space program as this is the year that President Kennedy set out the great challenge to go to moon by the decade’s end, but it doesn’t, at least not directly. The space term dates to 1949. This moon shot is baseball jargon for a ball hit to a great height. But it’s still 1961, so the baseball usage could be a figurative use of the space term, but the type of hit was made famous by L. A. Dodger Wally Moon. Undoubtedly the coinage is something of a double entendre, combining Moon’s name with the astronautic term, but it shows that in etymology the obvious answer isn’t always the right one.

[1] http://www.wordorigins.org/index.php/site/comments/1961_word...
That is wrong. As a user you can of course access any code distributed under BSD/MIT as well. Any user is free to refuse to install software which does not come with its code. GPL is the attempt of forcing developers to open source all their code. Even the one not built on top of open source software. But what freedom does the user have, if no developer had written the software in the first place? As a commercial developer, you most of the time cannot completely open source your software stack (you need to make money, trade secrets might be involved, third party licenses. However, recent history shows that many companies are willing to open source part of their stack using the BSD/MIT license.
I get them every day already. I, for one, am not offended by it.

EDIT: actually, I'm exaggerating here. I don't get them every day literally, but I encounter them quite a bit.
This still seems shaky to me: wouldn't then, e.g. the Google image search pipeline perform an enormous number of copyright violations every day? They download images from a huge number of different rights holders, store them on google servers, recode them to produce thumbnails and distribute the recoded images via the image search UI. By your logic, they'd have to ask every single rights builder for permission to create derived works before they can include their images in image search.

Additionally, every time I download something from the web and store it on my hard drive, my OS will enrich it with metadata: file name and path, timestamps, local user, permissions, etc. So unless a site author grants all visitors the permission to create derived works, I'd be infringing just by visiting their web site.

Finally, if you assume that only some metadata counts as creating a derived work, Getty would have to prove that all users they threatened did in fact use Getty's "enhanced" version of the image and not the original. I find it very unlikely that the photographer herself would have used Getty's version and not herselfes, so I don't think they did that.
When you mean google "yelp $business" is $business like "chinese restaurante" or the actual name?

All pages are "community created", you can try to recreate the page if your page is gone, you go to "Write a review", search for it and then "Add a Business"

Of course you might pay, or take them to court as well
How to get started with blended learning
gRPC is based on Stubby: http://www.grpc.io/posts/principles
If you are going to destroy the oceans that we all rely on for fishing, you should pay for them. You break it you buy it. The idea that someone can just come onto your property and destroy your land, as long as they do it with toxic gasses, is not very libertarian.
Try Cap'n Proto instead. Better designed and faster.
> Taking papers at face value is really only a problem in science reporting and at (very) sub-par institutions/venues.
> WRT the former, science reporters often grossly misunderstand the paper anyways. All the good reproducible science in the world is of zero help if science reporters are going to bastardize the results beyond recognition anyways...

Science is funded by the public, and done for the public. Good science reporting is very important to ensure that science continues to get funded. Too often scientific papers are written in a way that makes them incomprehensible to anyone outside of the field, whether that is through pressure to use the least amount of words possible or use of technical jargon.
"You Don't Know JS" is a great resource to start off with.
Aren't self driving cars good for Uber? My understanding is that Uber's plan in the event that self driving cars become practical is to have a fleet of them which can be summoned by users on demand.
In the larger picture, we hope that as standards of living rise in China and India, carbon use will improve ( decline ).
I've been reading Switching to Angular 2. Are collections still propagated via EventEmitter<Type>? Seems like the implementation is bleeding into the user code.

I maintain Angular continues to be a bad reimplementation of JSF except mostly on the client side.
I'm not the parent poster, but I feel similarly about Facebook so I'll take a shot at answering.

Bottom line is that I already use Gmail and a fair number of other Google services. I don't use Facebook at all.

It's not so much about trusting Google over Facebook, but rather an unwillingness to share my personal info with yet another company...and Google beat Facebook to the punch. If Facebook had offered a comparable set of services and had offered them first, the roles would be reversed.

That said, I've been looking at ways I can divorce myself from Google because I trust them about as far as I could throw Larry Page.
Then it would seem we are likely saying much the same thing in a different way. I apologize for my confusion.
My take is that it's a sign that the company is running low on cash and it is a sign that it has recognized the need to reduce its burn rate and it is a sign that the company is looking to reduce its expenses in regard to programming and it is a sign that your last invoice might not be paid and a sign that your invoices prior to the last invoice might not be paid. If you let them stack up.

Whether or not it's acceptable depends on which other options are available. If those options make the pay reduction acceptable, my advice is to require pre-payment in exchange for the reduction in rate.

The company has acknowledged pending cash flow problems. If the company balks at prepayment, it means that not paying you for work you have done is an option the company is considering as part of its survival plan.

There's no reason to trust the company to pay more than they trust you to do the work.

Good luck.
The inspiration for their display was pulled from someone's ass.

Seriously. There was an article discussing it a while back. There is a new kind of colonoscopy camera that uses a fiber optic cable with a rapidly-spinning business end to build up images rather than a camera with a conventional lens. You can imagine the impetus for shrinking the probe. They "just" reversed the light flow and now they have a fiber optic projector!
You're right, back when carbon credits versus taxes were being argued for, economists seemed to all agree taxes were the far superior choice. But credits allowed businesses and politicians to hand out favors, cut deals, and generally wallow in corruption and graft.

Thus credits won out over taxes.
I don't agree that experts are necessarily bad teachers. Some of the best experts in physics have been those who were widely regarded as great teachers (Feynman and Heisenberg being great examples).

However, I think there is something to the article as applied to the software industry. Often times we have come to understand solely through abstractions and abstractions are dangerous in this regard particularly when they don't match reality.

A really good example of this was the effort to apply the OSI model of abstractions to TCP/IP back around the turn of the century. Without an understanding of what made the ITU OSI effort different from the DARPA TCP/IP effort, at best one got an overly confusing and misleading understanding of what was actually happening from a networking perspective.

I do a lot of teaching these days as I have changed from being a self-employed consultant to being an employee at a Swedish consulting and training firm, and I do a lot of thinking as to "what are the right abstractions to push in this course?" In IT, that is a remarkably difficult question and one I answer largely through my love of history. For example, when I talk about object-orientation, I start with procedural programming, discuss why structural programming largely replaced it, and then discuss the problems of having your code contracts based on your data structures in C. From there I go to my main abstraction: Object orientation is an effort to hide state changes behind interfaces, to make the interface responsible for the state rather than the outside routine responsible for it. (This also makes it easy to start discussing functional programming.)

The danger of the expert is that the expert may become complacent about this question but the best experts are those who have not. Feynman wrote about insisting that he could explain his theories to his non-physicist relatives. Heisenberg wrote a book on the history of philosophy and how this applies to physics arguing the whole time that data does not imply theory.

If our experts aren't good teachers, that says more about what we want from experts and about our industry than it does about expertise generally.
I define 'investment' as 'money spent in the pursuit of future benefit'. In this case, money spent settling a lawsuit to avoid a significant chance of later spending a far greater amount paid as damages (and why else would you settle?) is most definitely investment.
LINGsCARS
As a SLAPP victim, Yelp's decision to punch-down against a pet-sitting business is a slap in my face. A few years back I was sued by a chain of business for $2 Million. These were private-equity financed businesses which serially sue customers, as I later verified using public records search. I complained to Yelp, to no avail.

I went to a lawyer who told me that they have a lot of cash in the bank and that I don't want to fight them, and encouraged me to sign a non-disparagement agreement and pay them some money and move on with my life. I took his advice.

I lost over $20K due to this, as well as months of frustration in which my career and family life took a hit.

Still quite angry, I watched, (using public records requests) as they continued to sue more customers, contractors, or anyone else. Eventually, I found a lawsuit in which they directly contradicted claims they had made in their complaint against me, and even provided 100s of pages of documents showing that my "defamatory" statements were correct! So I called a lawyer, who reviewed the documents and told me that I have a very strong case to have my settlement thrown out because it was fraudulent induced. However, he said that that due to their history of Trump-like earth-scorching, it would be a bad idea to pursue this without a big reserve of cash, patience, and nerves. (In fact, the lawyer, who practices in NJ, mentioned Trump by name as an analogy.)

When I was sued, my adversary was financed by private equity company funded by someone with over $10 billion net worth. (This was one of my assertions that I was sued for, which was later corroborated in court documents.) Yelp told me I was on my own. Now Yelp is taking on Prestigious Pets, in an effort to protect free speech.

So, Yelp, if you want to humiliate someone your own size, I'm happy to have a confidential discussion with your lawyers. Let me know how to get in touch with you.
Why would we want specialized processors when a modern CPU core is filled with dozens of CPU cores? And no, I'm not trying to be snarky, but Channel IO sounds like something from the days when CPU was rare and expensive but doesn't make sense in an architecture where lots of cores exist and IOPS and network are generally a bigger issue. What am I missing?
Random thought: Why are we communicating almost only on the release of CO2 and not of the burning of O2?

It's easier to communicate that's O2 being reduced is problematic for human beings as our bodies perform worst even with slight reductions in O2 levels. O2 levels have a more direct impact on humans. Plus, O2 concentration levels are actually being reduced faster than CO2 levels are rising. CO2 is not a toxic gas by itself and climate sciences that show CO2 is bad for the planet are hard. It would seem easier to convince people burning O2 is harmful. It's true and easy to demonstrate.

> Evidence from prehistoric times indicates that the oxygen content of pristine nature was above the 21% of total volume that it is today. It has decreased in recent times due mainly to the burning of coal in the middle of the last century. Currently the oxygen content of the Earth’s atmosphere dips to 19% over impacted areas, and it is down to 12 to 17% over the major cities. At these levels it is difficult for people to get sufficient oxygen to maintain bodily health: it takes a proper intake of oxygen to keep body cells and organs, and the entire immune system, functioning at full efficiency. At the levels we have reached today cancers and other degenerative diseases are likely to develop. And at 6 to 7% life can no longer be sustained.

Ref: http://www.ebooks.com/113897/macroshift/laszlo-ervin-clarke-...
The fields are indexed by field names (converted to lower camel case) instead of tag numbers. It's great for readability, but it's a lot more verbose, particularly for repeated fields.
I heard angular is a framework and react is lib.
angular 2 or react.
Coming from nodejs, python, php, jquery experience which should I learn?
Nice! You can implement a real time skin segmentation algorithm using HSV segmented skin as training, and using random forests to do classification, it classifies in real-time with opencv!

Here is a video of my result from only training with one frame of a segmented HSV hand to some random videos: https://vimeo.com/114489035

Also, you can use a kinect or an occipital structure sensor to do segmentation from a certain depth, more hardware but less vision computation.
One can only hope that the only ideology someone calling themselves a libertarian has is a bias in favor of freedom.
I don't think I would be a good match for bank culture or HFT, but if the work you describe is in a small-to-medium sized asset manager or hedge fund, then I would not mind, and would find it enjoyable. I worked at such a place a number of years ago and it was one of the better jobs I've had.

The trouble I find is that a lot of small-to-medium sized asset managers and hedge funds don't have very good technology practices in general, and are pretty far from sophisticated use of low-level Python. There are often a lot of political reasons why they cling to Excel/VBA, R, or MATLAB, and there's almost always some political battle happening between the people that want to rationalize the system to a proper software design, and people who just want to keep cranking on the hodge podge of existing tools.

I'd probably be fine with some trade-off regarding all of that, if the pay was acceptable and there was a strong commitment to a healthy work/life balance. But among finance firms this is extremely hard to find.

So even though I am not at all opposed to doing this work in finance, I still find the volume of acceptable job openings in that field to be too small to make it realistic.
Tomasz Tunguz, Redpoint: Benchmarking Your Startup (Video and Transcript)
Yeah, that's sort of deliberate. Because the consonant system is so much more developed than the vowels, it's easier for them to do more of the heavy lifting, even if that is a bit unusual in natural language terms. I could probably stand to tweak the probabilities a bit though.
Tl;Dr using a better way to structure a transaction we can improve on SegWit in many ways. Most importantly in complexity so we can lower the risk of deployment very significantly. Additionally space savings are better than in SegWit and the result fixes many issues that SegWit doesn't.
Thank you for the link. I guess I should never count out the Brits when it comes to these things! ;) The last reliable thing I found for Germany was an article that cited a rise to 25% after something or other in 2014, which is why I didn't quite expect those numbers. But in these days...
Many people have mentioned that replicating an experiment can be expensive, but I don't think anybody has really brought up just how expensive this can be.

Not all science is done in a lab. Replicating an experiment is obviously feasible for a short term psychology experiment, but in earth sciences (oceanography for instance.) it is far less often possible to reproduce an experiment for the following reasons.
N.B. This is all from my personal experience of one field of science.

1.) Cost. If you got funding to take an ice-breaker to Antarctica to "do science" it required several million dollars to fund. It is difficult enough to secure funding for anything these days, none the less prohibitively expensive attempts to reproduce results. (honestly any serious research vessel will run costs into the millions, regardless of destination.)

2.) Time. Say you are on a research vessel taking measurements of the Amazon river basin. This is a trip that takes months to years to plan and execute. If you return to duplicate your experiment 2 years later, the ecology of the area you were taking measurements of may have changed completely.

3.) Politics. Earth sciences often require cooperation from foreign entities, many of which are not particularly stable, or whom may be engaging in political machinations that run counter to your nationality's presence in the country, or both. Iran and China are two good examples. Both are home to some excellent oceanographers, and both of which can be very difficult to Science in when your team includes non Iranian/Chinese nationalities.
How are Snowplow and Piwik completely proprietary?
It's because they convinced Google to give them a half billion dollars. That is seen as verification of their claims.
With random sampling?
...until the interested business parties band together to form a government of sorts for their own benefit.
While it's true, that you can't use nix/guix everywhere, but the ideas are orthogonal to where you can write/compile Go code.
And on services/products from the USA, right? Per capita we're using more energy and producing more CO2 than China and India and almost everywhere else. (Australia looks about the same. The UAE appears to be at the top.)

Also, per the chart you've linked, India's CO2 production looks quite low. Not sure why you're lumping them in with China.