skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I think this is the crux of the issue. The author's examples seem to have the sound of authority because they are coming from a person of authority. There are however, ways around this.

For example, using the first quote the author used, instead of outright saying "maybe just a darker shade of blue there" the boss should question why a darker shade of blue wasn't chosen. Perhaps the employee has a good reason for it. Maybe they didn't consider that shade. Either way, a suggestion is made but doesn't sound like authoritative directive.
I'm not an expert at any of this stuff and this math could very easily be wrong, but I just spent some time with Wolfram Alpha validating that claim. a 40,000 liter hydrogen truck can carry 425 gigajoules of liquid hydrogen; if it drives 500 miles, a diesel tractor trailer getting 5mpg would burn 100 gallons of diesel, that's 14 gigajoules of energy (now keep in mind that much hydrogen only weighs 3000kg - a typical load for a tractor trailer is 10000-20000kg) - if it was a fuel cell truck, it could be twice as efficient as an ICE so would only need 7 gigajoules. 7 gigajoules is 1.6% of the transported 425 gigajoules of energy. A state of the art HVDC transmission line loses 3.5% per 1000 km, so it seems like a hydrogen truck might actually be more efficient than wires.
We did the research independently (all authors work in the Israeli public health system). The NESARC survey was funded by The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA), a part of the NIH.
Have you checked out RetroPie, the distribution mentioned in the article? In my experience, using a PS3 controller with that consisted of connecting the controller via a USB cable, selecting 'configure controller' from the main menu, and mapping all the buttons. All in all that took maybe a minute or two.
What are those?
The effect is that, if you want to reason about JavaScript programs, you can't carry out your reasoning in JavaScript itself, but rather have to use an external metalanguage - ideally something like Hoare logic, but, realistically, usually an informal, insufficiently understood, even insufficiently defined language, like English.

OTOH, a Haskeller can reason about Haskell programs by just evaluating Haskell expressions.
Most of the funky symbols in Haskell are library defined operators. You can define your own in a single line of code. They behave just like functions, just with an infix syntax by default, instead of prefix.

You can use Hoogle (eg https://www.stackage.org/lts-6.9/hoogle?q=%3E%3E%3D) to look them up.

It's a bit daunting at first. But most code actually only uses operators from at most a few libraries. Once you understand Monoid, Applicatives and Monads and their operators, you'll be doing OK.

There are alphabetic names for their operators. But they are not used much---working programmers prefer the symbols. Alas, learning wouldn't be much easier with them either, because most of the work is in understanding the concepts. People would complain just as much about the cryptic names as about the cryptic symbols.

(The only mainstream library that really goes crazy with the symbols is 'lens'.)
Oh, is it time to declare a popular and widely-used thing dead again?
What do you do if they really need improvement?
I don't want to be rude, but that is nearly impossible to read without paragraph breaks.
It's definitely possible to run something like hq3x in real time, and many emulators support that, though I'm not sure if RetroPie specifically makes it easy to configure that stuff. Though I'd argue that algorithmically smoothing out low res art frequently makes it look worse than the source material.
Personal attacks are not allowed on Hacker News. We ban accounts that do this, so please don't do it again. Instead, please (re)-read the site guidelines and post civilly and substantively, or not at all:

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html

We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12154150 and marked it off-topic.
That just shows there are at least two ways the problem could have been avoided — don't do the acquisition, or don't lose that key person.

...Or make sure the person taking over has the right vision. Three ways! :)
That's really not an appropriate tone to take with someone who learned something new. There are probably lots of things that you don't know that are obvious to other people.
> Do you need someone to verify your ID to get a WeChat account with a wallet?

You need to enter your debit card number and your phone number that is registered with that bank. Its all connected automatically so that if you go to the bank and update your phone number, you can sign in with the new phone number on WeChat wallet the next day.

> I don't think it would be legal to implement something like that in North America without ID checks and a money transmission license

Its not hard to get when you are a big company with $$.

> What are the fees?

None. Although, I believe they started charging if you are transferring money more the some amount (can't remember, but its negligible)

> If non-zero, why do people prefer it to cash?

Convenience. So convenient. I hate going to the bank, line up and wait for an hour. You can transfer more cash with WeChat than you can at the ATM as well.

> I honestly don't see any innovation here

The innovation is simplicity and convenience. All those annoying things like paying electricity bill can all be done with a click on your phone. No more mailing or going to the convenience store to pay your bills. All done in 5 seconds.

This is a classic example of a product 10x better than the alternative. WeChat payment isn't reinventing the wheel here and I argue thats a good thing.

> The tech is dirt simple.

The tech shouldn't be simple to prevent fraud. The UX of transferring money is simple, but the backend logic should be very strict given the amount of users, a single bug can cost money.

(personal rant)
The problem with people's perception of tech is that just cause the UX is simple, does not meant the programming is. It all depends on the product you are building.

Google back in 2000 is a great example. One search bar, lots of tech behind it.
Efficient, actually. Very quickly reallocates resources based on predicted future value.
Then it's more than 2 cents worth.
Matthew Dicks is a great story teller with some good tips:
http://www.matthewdicks.com/new-page-5/

https://themoth.org/storytellers/matthew-dicks
It's not a totally insane belief to have. Facebook infamously held onto a "deleted" picture belonging to an Ars Technica writer for well over three years. [1]

Hanlon's Razor would just dismiss that as "CDN's are hard", but it doesn't explain why the one picture owned by the author that they emailed Facebook about finally went away, but others they had the URLs for did not.

Whether it be malice or stupidity, I think the sane default belief is that "delete" doesn't actually remove the bits in most cases, and that goes double for PII brokers like Facebook and Google. Act accordingly.

[1]: http://arstechnica.com/business/2012/02/nearly-3-years-later...
So much this.

Yes, some people can work on their passion and their job is not a vehicle for personal sustainability --but for a good many people work is work. They are good, they are great at their jobs, but ultimately it's a job they do well --however they may have passions --things they can suffer over, elsewhere. And I really don't see an issue there.

I think it's a great misconception management sell where it's sold that passionate people are the only true workers worthwhile. It really shows how out of touch some people are with the outside world.
I agree with this mostly. You can get rid of state in OO programs, and that often involves a bit of functional programming. Struct/values in C# help a lot in keeping the performance up (well, if GC is a problem, you can also inline your closures to prevent boxing...lots of crazy things like that). Essential (rather than accidental) state is impossible to eliminate in any case.
Their definition of 'Lift' is interesting. In essence with that definition they could redefine Applicative Functors as something that's a 'Lift' and a Pointed Functor.
It's a "suggestion" from a direct superior in a hierarchical power structure. A little bit of communication isn't going to change the context.

So no, it is not something simple like "bad communication".

I think one of the main problems here is that people in power often feel like they have to justify themselves by giving technical feedback, even when it's not appropriate.
There is the Arduboy¹, which is definitely a lot more primitive.

――――――

¹ — https://www.arduboy.com/store/products/arduboy
Unless you're genuinely curious, that would likely come across as passive-aggressive undermining.
Couldn't have said it better. We don't claim there is some mechanism where smoking pot will make you suicidal. But we want to explore the strong association between the two, which has been shown time and again in previous studies. Our findings point to important differences between the sexes, so what I would take from our results is not "cannabis is bad", instead - "cannabis use and suicidality are complex behaviors, and effects of sex differences should be further explored". But that won't make a good headline, I guess :)
I think it's good to note, as Derek does, the distinction between "2 cents' worth" and larger changes that do require senior input - otherwise you're just being the manager that the team create ducks for [1].

This is where coaching skills as a manager can prove useful. If you feel there are some minor changes that could be an improvement, but don't want to impose your will/opinion, coaching ('ask') can be a better response than managing ('tell').

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. They can reply "Nothing" if they're confident in the final solution, or they may propose some tweaks they weren't fully happy with - "I'm not sure if that's the right shade of blue" or "I think that's the right call to action, but maybe we could get another opinion". If those are reasonable improvements, empower them to implement the additional change; if you disagree with the extras they raise, tell them you consider the version they proposed to be superior, which empowers their original decision.

Just don't be the manager who expects a detailed response and change every time ... then you're right back to where you started.

[1] See point 5 https://blog.codinghorror.com/new-programming-jargon/
Yes, some emulators even allow for swapping in higher res assets. I know Dolphin in particular can do this.
It's more like Google says 'yeah, you can hang your art here' then once the walls fill up, burns your artwork, moves out of the house and wont answer your texts.

At minimum, artists and other specialty individuals need extra allowances and certainties. Were they a corporate entity, this wouldn't have happened. Personally, I value culture at least as highly as most businesses.
Another reason is that you get better deals paying with WeChat than cash. For example, you might get 20% off a meal if you pay with WeChat (or some other mobile payment like AliPay). This adds up very quickly.
Not only that, oop people sometimes use 'functor' to mean an object you can call like a function.
just trying to calm the market by providing the public investors with what they think is a more realistic projection.
Pokemon GO and the Ethics of 'Bring Your Own Boundaries' Games
If you can't use the builtin `==` operator, you can throw away much of the builtin functionality. The runtime uses `==` in far too many places without ability to provide your own comparator. You want to use your own types as keys in a `Map` or `WeakMap`? Yeah, not going to work.
As a follow up to this article, I need about 40 examples that illustrate the difference between manager opinions that are worth two cents, and useful manager feedback. Or about 10 years of experience, but I'm hopeful that someone will offer examples.
I usually send personal messages when I see this particular error. That's not possible on HN, so I guess a comment is the next best thing. Your downvotes, however, tell me we should just get used to seeing it "could care less" more often.
This seems a bit condescending to me. I can take suggestions and feedback without losing sight of my own accomplishments. Because I'm an adult.
> This is only three quaters true.

I said 'when they work in that mode'.
The self-driving car project that came from Google X sparked the huge investment in autonomous vehicles, and gave Google a huge head start. In addition, they positioned themselves well with a large investment in Uber. The moonshot has succeeded/will succeed from a technological sense. Now they just need the right go-to-market approach.
Alcohol is strongly associated with suicidality, but again, it's difficult to prove causality (Try randomizing people to "alcohol binging group" or "suicidal ideation group"). The association is more robust than that for cannabis.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2872355/
I think it's a common delusion for managers to think that this kind of feedback is helpful, which is the kind of misconception this article addresses.

"They should work on fostering better employer - employee relationships" is non-advice, it's just a goal statement. Kind of like telling a runner that they should try going faster.
In addition to what others have said. If I were to actually /buy/ a cart, how would I rip it to my computer without knowledge of how the stuff works and (IIRC) expensive equipment. You're average Joe isn't gonna spend money on an actual cartridge (that won't benefit the authors in any way) and figure out how to dump it when someone else has already done that.

It's not gonna benefit the authors because they aren't making them anymore. Unless you somehow bought it directly from the authors or stores are still buying stock, there's no way for the money to go to the author. Carts are all pretty much second hand now.
"Often people on this forum are so concerned with the gears that they've missed the point of the car. End users don't care if the tech is literally built from sticks and stones. IMO there is a great wealth of good business ideas that require very little technical innovation. But programmers don't want to work on something which feels beneath them."

As a programmer, you just blew my mind. I completely agree.
And the first two Monkey Island games, that got a remake.
The difference is that he can easily get his blog running again on another platform. If the government were silencing him, he couldn't do that.
But there are ways of eliciting critical thought about the choices made and even about alternatives that the person in power has.

It is "bad communication" in that the person in power is communicating their desire in a way that is perceived, even if just a little bit, as being a command. And I do believe there are effective ways to mitigate this.
Conceptually is nice. All react code I've seen or wrote of even the most trivial systems have components (and more then a few) that override lifecycle methods - which is by almost definition OO's polymorphism.

Buy even if you could write every component with the stateless style it doesn't change the fact that your framework/GUI-library is using OO extensively and in it's fundamental concepts, I think that makes it OO, you seem to disagree.
"How do you avoid waste? How do you avoid kickbacks and corruption and pork-barelling?"

This is often brought up in relation to public vs private funding. But private funding is also massively wasteful and also involves a lot of pork barrelling. It just isn't centralised or accountable.

Speculation, failed products (or worse yet, successful but bad or useless products), failed businesses, and sales, compliance, patent and procurement costs, all sit on top of the cost of designing and producing drugs. All split up between different parties initially, but in the end shouldered by the general public, both in outright costs and also in opportunity costs.

I reckon we could bear quite a bit of waste before it became worse than the private sector.
But why use MD5 anyways? Google has quite an impressive image searching algorithm. Why not just use that? Using MD5 won't do anything because, almost certainly, a false positive is /not/ the same image. You'd need some kind of rolling hash that gets longer the longer the file is. Then do a soft check on that.
There's this tricky edge between "compliant" and "correct". I could build "a box" that takes files and only lets you add new versions, but ultimately it can't enforce me removing its drives and manually editing them.

In other words, the compliance level is actually pretty good, but the solutions themselves are weak and not hardened against intent (just normal operating use).
Off topic but "could care less" and "couldn't care less" are both idioms in common use with the same meaning
The majority of software written ever has been written in the world's most popular functional programming language: Excel.
Lolita contains erotic descriptions of sexual acts involving a child — the scene where Dolly is on Humbert's lap. But yet, it's a work written from the perspective of an unreliable sociopath. Things aren't so simple.
Given an unbiased algorithm that does better at predicting recidivism, it would be easy to deliberately construct an algorithm that does almost as much better, but is egregiously biased. For example, if you had been wronged by somebody named Thiel, you could persuade it to never recommend parole for anybody named Thiel. There aren't enough people named Thiel for this to substantially worsen its measured performance.

Given that it's easy to construct an example of how you could deliberately do this, and it's so easy to accidentally overfit machine-learning algorithms, we should be very concerned about people accidentally doing this. An easy way would be to try a few thousand different algorithm variants and have a biased group of people eyeball the results to see which ones look good. If those people are racist, for example, they could subconsciously give undue weight to type 1 errors for white prisoners and type 2 errors for black prisoners, or vice versa.

The outcome of the process would be an algorithm that is "objectively better" by whatever measure you optimize it for, but still unjustly worsens the situation for some group of people.

A potential advantage of algorithms and other rules is that, unlike the brain of the judge, they can be publicly analyzed, and the analyses debated. This is the basis for the idea of "rule of law". Aside from historical precedents, though, the exploitation of the publicly-analyzed DAO algorithms should give us pause on this count.

Deeper rule of law may help, but it could easily make the situation worse. We must be skeptical, and we must do better.
It depends on what you mean. The OP was talking about prime time programming on the 3-4 major networks. That's very different from what's being produced on pay channels like HBO or Showtime, or on Netflix. I agree that the high quality stuff is better than 10-20 years ago, where everything was a Friends or Seinfeld ripoff. But I think most of the high quality stuff is on non-major networks these days. Though maybe that's just my perception. I find myself watching less and less stuff on those networks, and more and more on the other networks.
This is not reddit. Your comment adds nothing to the discussion.
Memory foam mattres
http://www.memoryfoammattresreviewss.com/product-review-of-sleep-master-memory-foam-mattress/
That's a false analogy. What I'm saying is not like "Numpy is faster than Python"; it's like "Numpy is faster than some scientific computing that the creators of a Python framework hand-rolled separately."

Some frameworks write their own CUDA kernels for operations beyond what cuDNN offers, and also wrap cuDNN. So certain operations may run faster or slower depending on how you choose to execute them with the framework.
Case in point: I run PCSX2 on my computer running a third gen Intel CPU with a GTX 950 and have to resort to quite a few hacks just to get the game to run at a "measly" 45 fps or so. What's "great" is that the game is designed to run at 60 fps. The timers in the game are all based on a second being 60 frames. So, despite having a good enough frame rate, the game runs at anywhere from 2/3 to 3/4 of the original speed I remember it being.
Actually "right way" is described in article, so don't worry about his knowledge.

I think point of this article is OOP have so many limitations for safe usage, that makes usage of FP more comfortable.
What about the new Pi 3B? I know the 2B isn't fast enough for 1080@60, but is the 3B any better?
You seem to have lost focus. Let me remind you what issue I am commenting on is https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12148735
What always irritated me about Google X was exactly that rhetoric around "moonshots", as if Google had discovered this completely new technique for getting stuff done.

Not only have quite a few companies and organisations successfully completed huge, ambitious, forward-looking projects; but Google haven't, at least nothing remotely comparable to the actual moonshot they happily co-opt. Google has done lots of amazing stuff, but usually in a remorselessly incremental way.

Gmail and Google Maps (especially Street View) are the closest I can think of to "moonshots" in that they were big and bold improvements over what had come before. But neither one would be called a "moonshot" by Google X standards. In each case a back of the envelope estimate would be enough to show that it would work out (in technical terms, if not business terms).

So why does Google act like they're uniquely qualified to make moonshots work?
And all that took were a few faxes.
That's easy! Just use Bochs. Don't bother with recompilation, just use interpreted x86 :)
Actually, from what I've seen, pure FP forces people with less experience into design and structures of their code that they'd only do in imperative settings with considerably more experience.

Eg when I asks students to do some simple exercise like "write a function that finds the shortest path through a given graph", in impure languages their solutions tend to return a path if they find one, but just give up with eg a message printed to screen when there's no path.

In pure and types languages, I see more people reaching for a Maybe or Either return type to express that the function as asked for might not succeed.
> I usually send personal messages

why??

> this particular error

It isn't an error, unless you think language has to be perfectly regular and logical with no warts. That's a fantasy. Language develops organically and as such we should expect contradictions and illogical constructions to arise from time to time.

Everyone knows what "could care less" means. There's no external, objective standard by which you can say it's "incorrect". Stop worrying about it.

An example of this type of inversion that has become widespread: in French, "pas" means "not", but originally meant "step", and came into its current meaning via (roughly) the following sequence:

"Je ne marche" (I don't walk) -> "Je ne marche pas" (something like: I don't walk [even a single] step) -> "Je marche pas" (over time, "ne" became dropped in informal speech, and "pas" carries the negative meaning.)
It's easier to prove stuff about simpler code.
A lot of these older classics that you'd probably want to emulate are actually available in some form or other. For PS1/2 games, you can often purchase inexpensive digital copies on the Playstation Store, and for older Nintendo titles they offer digital copies through their Virtual Console service.

Additionally, just because a title isn't easily available for purchase, or available through your desired channels, that doesn't magically invalidate copyright.