skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> "Companies don't want to use GPL licensed software because they want to build their closed source software on top of it and thats difficult."

No, it goes beyond that.

I've heard stories where IT departments have blocked GPL software from being used (as end users, not as an integral part of a software product) due to it being unclear where the GPL starts and ends.

The article gives an example of a legal clarity issue in the 'dynamically linked' section:

"Most of what is in GPLv3 are important, clear improvements. However, they’re clouded and subsumed by one big unknown – the dynamic link.

Apple, for example, was forced to stop contributing to the open-source project Samba, and instead had to build its own SMB file server, based on the final GPLv2 code release of Samba. Now, Samba is deprived of code contributions that Apple would otherwise have been happy to share. Why? Because Apple is afraid that someone might argue that Samba is “dynamically linked” to OS X, and in turn (per rules of GPLv3), force Apple to share the entire source code of OS X.

This is stupid. But some argue even typing a file name into a terminal window constitutes a dynamic link. Others argue you must use some shared library, where code natively interacts in an intended manner, such as a dylib or .dll file to create this scenario.

Vagaries of this degree should not be in the GPL. It should be scrapped, or at least, replaced with clear and concise definitions that most industry experts in engineering (and product management) can explain in human terms."
Sometimes in cs if your research is embedded in a huge ecosystem, it can become quite expensive to reproduce results. I mean proper reproduction, not just rerunning the Benchmarks. If you are dealing with complicated stuff, the reproducer might also just not be able to do the same thing technically.
but in medicine, what is the practical alternative?

how do you incorporate these findings? ignore them?

if so, it's probably bad for your patients. the only thing worse than a single-study finding is a zero-study finding.
Breakthrough solar cell captures carbon dioxide, produces burnable fuel
I sometimes downvote the top comment if I think that those below are much better (especially if the top comment is a common argument that is often posted on HN, and so doesn't really add much to the discussion)
Broken assumes it was working well at some point. Nothing new here.
Google Public DNS Over HTTPS
We learned the importance of this in high school science and it baffles me that it's not already the case.
Turkish academics: Remain silent or risk all
Docker Swarm – An Analysis of a Very-Large-Scale Container System
It's usually a combination of a competent but misguided senior engineer and a fleet of buisiness dudes who aren't qualified to assess whether the engineers work is actually any good.

He'll seem to weave magic initially, and the company/project will launch and make money for the people involved. It's only later, when other engineers show up, that the extent of the horror becomes evident, by which point the senior engineer has already been enshrined as the "genius" behind the companies success.

Only the new, junior engineers can see the Emperors clothes for what they are.
Inside Coworking Design with Kontor London
The linked article completely misrepresents FSB's announce. It says that FSB has come up with the procedure by which companies can hand them their encryption keys, not that they will be able to decrypt everything themselves.

Is it possible to correct the title? It's actively misleading now.
Really? I could care less. (Is it right?)
Indeed, because C++ and Fortran get the money and time, and they're closer to the metal to begin with. Also, C++'s "Nasal Demons on UB" problem helps a lot.

But yes, OCaml is quite fast, and probably could be faster. Does it really beat C++ in all contexts? Probably not, but it's still pretty fast.
Much of what we peer review is not real science, at least in its definition of applying the scientific method.

For example, much of computer "science" is not. Math maybe, engineering probably, design sometimes, but "science" is rarely done. BUT the science envy is there, especially post 1990s, and it is as confusing as heck when multiple definitions of "science" collide in a conference culture.

Yes I'm a researcher, no I'm not a scientist.
They say nice guys finish last.

I say, that's why their women love them! ;-)
For CS, reproducing should be easy given the code and input data right? Other sciences' input isn't so easily shared
I saw similar levels of ridiculousness with XML during my (brief) time working with Enterprise Java many years ago, although it didn't go as far as the use of Subversion... but I did experience a lot of the "you just don't understand how beautiful it is" sentiment from the architecture-astronaut creator(s) of these behemoths. Now that JSON is the "new modern XML", I'm not surprised at all that things like this have come into existence.
The copy left license certainly has helped add driver code over the past few years.
Definitely a minority opinion and one that breaks down when you bring up the inevitable argument: would you let Hitler conquer the world and exterminate its non-Germans?
What a silly system! They should have used BobX instead.

http://thedailywtf.com/articles/We-Use-BobX
Perhaps those who are skeptical of the first research (and are losing money from it) should fund the replication research.

Incentive for corrupting the data seems high, however.
Oh! How about a github awesome-life list?
I speak russian and I can ensure you this story is ridiculous for every IT-related person in Russia. Russian segment of the internet already produced a lot of memes and jokes about "all keys in 2 weeks" (and teleport in last day, please). It's just level of incompetence of the Russian government.

This law is just reason to ban every messenger who will not send traffic to FSB.
Having a system with trusted reviewers is even easier to game as well.
How to reduce Chrome resource usage
I've learned to stop reading as soon as I know it's by James Altucher. He's done some interesting things, he says some interesting things, but by and large, personally, I find his writings to be a net negative. What appear to be gems are often costume jewellery, and there's a lot of manure to get through to find them.

Usually I'll read things and assess them on their merits before I correlate them with their author - this article is making me reassess that approach.
Thank you, I will check them out.
Here’s roughly what it’s supposed to look like, http://i.imgur.com/yOndq70.png

Your browser window is just too wide. With such an oversized browser window, a substantial proportion of content on the web, perhaps the majority, is going to have an absurdly wide measure to the point of extreme illegibility. I highly recommend narrowing your window; as a general rule it will dramatically improve web typography.

HTML/CSS technology are really bad at giving page authors easy control over precise text layout. If they make the CSS code short and use percentages, then everything will end up too wide in large browser windows, and too narrow in small browser windows. But if they use fixed widths or maximum widths, it’s easy to screw up and break the layout in some browsers.

P.S. the author directly addresses your point in the linked page, did you read it?

“From a typographical perspective, the most appropriate method is to set box width in ems (elastic layout) as it ensures the measure is always set to the typographer’s specification. Setting box width as a percentage (liquid layout) gives the typographer approximate control over measure but also allows the reader to adjust the layout to suit his or her comfort. This website has been designed with liquid layout to afford readers this control.”
Can you provide an example? I would not consider reasonable overhead costs to be "investment" dollars, but you may have something else in mind.
I called out several in my original post. You want more? Elm, for one.
I've seen GADTs as a feature that Haskell devs complained about, similar to Template Haskell. I know the issues with TH, but what's the limitation of GADTs as implemented in Haskell, and are there languages with less problematic implementations?
>I think however, it is misleading at best to say that it doesn't have many native apps.

'well known' is implied by basic logic: users don't want apps they haven't heard of before.
What you need to understand about this study is that radiation poses a particular risk to structural tissues. A structural tissue is anything where function is dictated by form, such as the cardiovascular system or the nervous system (whose function is largely dependent upon the physical layout of the connections between neurons).

Tissues such as the spleen and the lungs are not considered structural because, while they certainly have a physical configuration that is important, their function is distributed identically, or nearly identically, throughout their structure.

If radiation affects one part of a non-structural tissue, it's function is relatively easily transferred to another area.

This is not true of the cardiovascular system; the function of the aorta, for example, cannot be accomplished by a capillary in the leg.

Radiation beyond the magnetosphere can be understood as mainly a point injury. When the highly-accelerated nucleus of a heavy element, for example, passes through a tissue, it causes local tissue damage. This is more important when the tissue is structural, and even more important when that tissue has a limited capacity for repair.

The Apollo astronauts were only beyond the magnetosphere for two weeks or less. Travel to Mars, or habitation on the moon, will both require far greater radiation exposures.

Shielding from highly-accelerated nuclei is currently impossible because they create secondary radiation in any shielding material that is far worse than the original problem.

Long-duration human space flight beyond the magnetosphere is therefore impossible with current technology, despite the hype. We must develop either strong magnetic shielding or genetic modifications to improve radiation resistance before traveling to Mars, otherwise we will arrive with impaired cognition and other infirmities.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
Thank you for the suggestions, will investigate. And I don't know any author quite like Fred Vargas :-)
"Richard Branson started Virgin Air by putting up a sign when his plane was cancelled, selling tickets. He used the money raised from the tickets to rent an airplane. You can start an airline like that also."

And selling his empire of retail stores, he got a few pieces of silver from that too.
I have observed this myself. At one company I worked at, with about $50M in annual sales, the 'top sales' award was fiercely competed between two guys who'd each got about $10M in sales for the year. I don't know what the commission structure was, but at 10% that's $1M.

Those two were a breed apart however. They could talk to anyone, everyone liked them. They could work product and project mgmt teams to get just enough done to make the deal. The product at the time was a bit of dog too. I don't know how they did it, One thing I observed was; they seemed to have deep contacts in the companies they were selling to. How they developed these networks, I don't know. I think that is the "secret sauce" so to speak.
Bubble, What Bubble? Tech Giants Woo Wall Street with Bumper Results
It's not just electronics, Amazon is full of fake everything and because they allow commingling of inventory a fake can be sold and shipped by Amazon.
Ha, I did it in my early PHP days! At one stage I even tried using MySQL column comments to store metadata.

I think these kinds of things are great learning experiences, I'm just glad that abomination of mine was never released.
My first reaction to this headline was "duh." Of course we should hold off on accepting scientific claims (i.e., predictions about the natural world) that to date have been verified only by the same person making those claims!

My next reaction was, "wow, it's a sad state of affairs when a postdoctoral research fellow at Harvard Medical School feels he has to spell this out in a blog post." It implies that even at the prestigious institution in which he works, he is coming across people who treat science like religion.
How Hampton Creek's Plant-Based Foods Have Scrambled the Grocery Aisle
The dynamic linking issue is not as clear as you make out. To give an example, let's say a company decides to make a proprietary fork of a GPL software application. They keep all of their proprietary code in a separate library to the GPL code and dynamically link to it. Does the GPLv3 licence permit this?
Please reply to what I have written, not to some strawman you've created.

I'm not disputing their right to blog whatever they want, but the common notion here that just because the SFC doesn't feel like seeking damages and just forgives past violations, everybody else must not seek damages on his own.

It's great to have this written codex. It's fine to ask others if they would like to join.

But it's evil to start a shitstorm against anyone who dissents.
I wasn't making the point that map and filter were functional, I was trying to say that those were concepts originating in FP. And that they appear in so many languages demonstrates some of FP's influence.
> Every platform that is public and anonmyous runs afoul of this, this isn't just twitter. You can look at Youtube comments, reddit, pretty much any forum.

I would say every platform that is public and has anonymous people interacting with public personalities. If everyone on twitter was 100% anonymous you wouldn't be able to harass people like that. You would still be able to spam and harass, but you won't be harassing the Leslie Jones, you would be harassing some pseudonymous identity.

There is a very important reason people used to be told "NEVER EVER WRITE YOUR PERSONAL DETAILS ONLINE EVER ANYWHERE". You don't want your real life connected with your online pseudonym that you use on fun message boards, because for some people fun is sending SWAT teams to your house. I wouldn't mind if the solution is to separate online environments to ones that are completely pseudonymous, including permanently erasing identities corresponding to people that get doxxed; and ones where you can only post with your real-life name and identity. There is obviously a need for both environments, but having pseudonymous people co-exist with real people seems to be a recipe for mostly pain.
Company X invests billions into the "future". This continues for 5-10 years without results turning into profitable products or direct improvements. Shareholders begin to question the value of those investments. "Is the R&D being well spent?" Google hasn't turned any moonshot into a profitable product yet, right? They're going to need a winner or two to convince investors.

Apple will be in the same position in a few years because they are ramping up R&D.
Google was deemed to have broken wiretapping laws when it scooped up unsecured wifi data while collecting images for Streetview.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24047235
The+Best+Activities
Indeed. It would be a slow process, but over time, as you buy items, you select reviewers to follow who share your likes for the various items.

And it being a "social" thing, there's nothing stopping you from reaching out and having a conversation with reviewers.
A lot of "enterprise" applications (particularly CRMs) do have everything in the database - including their own metadata and executable code (scripts and/or binaries).

Sometimes this works a lot better that you might expect and the platform works pretty well, sometimes it produces Cthulhu level nightmares.
most cs papers i read (actually all) do -not- include code (or input data). which makes this an issue even in the case of cs.
At the same time, it also introduces ambiguity and uncertainty. The GPL-3 doesn't define what "dynamic linking" is. While it might be relatively clear for the simple case of a "static" or "shared" library, what about:

- libraries opened with dlopen
- libraries with an equivalent non-GPL licenced equivalent e.g. readline, which has a BSD-licenced reimplementation
- libraries accessed via IPC to a coprocess hosting the library

In all these cases, I can be intimately tied to the API/ABI of a library but unsure of my legal status with respect to GPL-3 compliance obligations. While I understand the general intent, I'm unhappy that this is open to interpretation and that the legal standing of this is not at all clear cut.

Likewise with the anti-Tivoisation clauses. While again I understand and agree with the intent, I feel that inserting the language to combat a single problem has damaged the generality of the licence and made it much less attractive to many as a result.

While I do like the GPL-2 and GPL-3 licences, I think it's fairly clear that while GPL-2 was acceptable to many companies the GPL-3 is not, and while I may disagree with their reasoning for their stance, the practical fallout from it has been quite detrimental. I've certainly started using BSD or MIT licences more frequently for recent projects, where I would previously have used GPL-2 or -3 by default, simply because the licence profusion has made licence compatibility between a project using a lot of differently licenced shared libraries a very real problem.
I would imagine this is going to be a tough question to answer since so much of the non-trivial Smalltalk code is implementing proprietary business logic and thus locked away.
Also, on Usenet nobody knew you were the Leslie Jones. Or a dog. On Twitter, there's a little blue indicator showing everyone that yes, this is the precise person you want to attack. It could just as well be a big target icon with "SEND ME HATE" in big letters.
For that statement to be true you would have to generalize the definition of fear to "anticipation of undesired outcome" and that entire quote reduces "there are things we like and dislike". Sounds like pretentious bullshit to me rather than an insightful quote.
https://web.archive.org/web/20160729111939/https://www.1843m...
We have some kind of weird hero-worship of scientists where the general public just believes what they say, even if they never even attempt to replicate their results. They do an experiment (which may or may not be scientifically sound to start with) and then publish results, and the public eats it up.

And then people have the nerve to say, "Last week chocolate was bad for me, now it's good? Make up you mind!" No, stop listening to un-replicated studies! Jeez.
No doubt. I mean trust is an aspect of any con, right?

Still, I would at least like to see something like what I mentioned tried.
Rerunning code does not count as reproduction as it is not an independent test of what is being claimed. You do have the option of verifying the code against the goals of the study, though that is a review rather than a reproduction (which is still valuable.)
Well, predictable in the sense that they would either reach the Moon and come back, or reach the Moon and die trying to come back, or reach the Moon and die there, or die along the way to the Moon, or explode in the air, or explode on the ground.
Docker for Windows is to isolate Windows software.

It's not a tool to test Linux containers on Windows.

The deployment target for Docker containers for Windows will be a Windows OS.
Sounds like the "inner-platform effect", which this article's title seems to be a reference to. That's where a system is so soft-coded that its configuration ends up being a (poor) clone of the original programming language. That could be using a key/value table in a relational database, and using custom data and code to reimplement tables/columns/joins/etc. In the case of JDSL, it's using Javascript code and JSON metadata to implement Javascript code.

There's also the "second system effect", where the creator tries to avoid all of the bad things they encountered in the first system, and implement every spur-of-the-moment idea they ever had, all at once.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner-platform_effect

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-system_effect
Smalltalk is indeed so simple that all complexity moves to the implementation level. This is good, because it allows all users to explore how things work, given a learning curve.

Since a Smalltalk image normally contains all code for everything, it is its own best example.

There are many cool Smalltalk code bases, some of them already many years old, for example, Seaside (a web app framework) or Glorp (an object relational mapper).

Pharo (http://www.pharo.org), the currently most successful open source Smalltalk implementation, has many frameworks and libraries that can be loaded that are each good examples.

To get you started, you could explore some of the articles in this publication: https://medium.com/concerning-pharo

One article containing small examples is this one: https://medium.com/concerning-pharo/elegant-pharo-code-bb590...
Disney Wants to Track Park Visitors by Secretly Photographing Their Shoes
People don't need a reason to not do something.

They'd need a reason to do it. So clearly the pitch above failed to give them a reason.
Skyvia 4.2 with Greatly Improved Backup
Enjoyable read, and I think for any experienced developer there's at least a _bit_ to relate to in there.

But seriously, this is why you have an integ/staging environment :)

And obviously, better developers.
The kind of people that come up with this stuff usually are in fact really good at visualising an abstract problem and implementing it in code. What they often lack is the capacity to translate what it is their frameworks do to language others can understand.

From what I have witnessed myself, these guys are actually quite intelligent in an abstract almost mathematical way — that is, they are not dumb and can come across as geniuses — but their mediocre communication skills prevent colleagues from actually understanding their work, and more importantly, prevent themselves from ever realizing that what they are doing is way too experimental and (not rarely) wildly inappropriate for the task at hand.

You will hear these visionaries extol the virtues of their revolutionary framework time and time again, and that it will be the foundation of anything the company builds for years to come, but any criticism or even critical questions are dismissed with an air of 'you-just-don't-get-it-yet'. In the end either you leave for greener pastures, or the idiot savant cracks under the pressure of changing business needs that cannot be met by the big framework that only he/she (usually he) really 'gets' and quits.
Joe Armstrong, one of the creators of erlang usually talks about this.

http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/2011-May/058768...
I tend to agree with the statement that anger is just fear without knowing the reason. It might be that the thing you fear is justified, but even then the anger becomes a concrete fear that you can act upon.
I'm not talking specifically on the dynamic linking issue. My point is that the GPL cannot force you to publish your source code, but if you break the terms you can lose the license to distribute GPL code that isn't yours.

As regards your example, I don't think the GPLv3 permits that, so if a company tries to circumvent the GPL using that approach, it would probably lose the rights to distribute the GPL software application.