skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I'd recommend Ben Klemens' excellent book "21st Century C - Tips from the New School" [0]. This book teaches you modern C techniques and, most importantly, the tooling that modern C programmers use (git, autotools, valgrind, etc.) It also covers commonly used libraries to help you from reinventing the wheel (GLib, POSIX standard, SQLite, libxml, & cURL.)

As mentioned in another post, David Hanson's "C Interfaces and Implementations - Techniques for Creating Reusable Software" [1] is a great book, stressing the design of good APIs. This book in particular might help you in your goal to become a better engineer.

On the free side, there's an excellent PDF by Jens Gustedt, "Modern C" [2]. I've not read the whole thing but it seems like an in-depth look at C11.

John Regehr's blog "Embedded in Academia" [3] is a good resource for C programming. You'll learn a lot about weird edge cases and undefined behavior. He also has a recent post about teaching C, with suggestions for resources [4].

[0] https://www.amazon.com/21st-Century-Tips-New-School/dp/14919...

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Interfaces-Implementations-Techniques...

[2] http://icube-icps.unistra.fr/img_auth.php/d/db/ModernC.pdf

[3] http://blog.regehr.org/

[4] http://blog.regehr.org/archives/1393
If the winter rolls around and you are in need, my e-mail is in my profile. Happy to make the drive down to help a fellow human being.
Yes, they're monitoring these CT logs..
> So package A depending on Bv1 and package C depending on Bv2 wouldn't
> work because they Bv1 and Bv2 would both have to be included,
> leading to a conflict.

As mentioned in this thread, this already works just fine. Rust can handle both versions.

Furthermore, it's more than just a constraint problem; there's also integration issues, testing the whole thing together, etc.
But likening them to ripples in a guitar string is still silly.

Why choose this somewhat distant similie when ordinary water waves are real gravity waves, and are even more familiar to people than are guitars (let alone the excitations of their strings)?

Perhaps the gravity waves in question are standing waves?
FlashFill, a feature in Microsoft Excel.
This will certainly backfire
OH for godsakes. C'mon. No really, come on. Go look up what Russia has done in the Ukraine over the past 4 years, and explain to us all what has changed. Over the past 4 years.

Then explain to us all why you want to give Trump a pass for wanting to be in bed with Russia.
Look how long Yahoo stuck around. These companies have massive inertia.
$600k is about 1500 sq ft, where I live, while median US home size is somewhere in the mid-2000's of square footage. Maybe when I'm house hunting, I should point out that I could get the same thing elsewhere for $200k.
Web Etiquette (1992)
All I'm saying is "monster profit" doesnt mean the company is doing any better than it was before. It's generating the same cash, they just aren't spending it the same way
> Absolutely, anyone with programming experience can make sense of the longer (and still quite terse) version.

Is that true? I'm skeptical.

Why is the "<-" symbol clearer to you? In particular, why did the commenter above write

li <- readLeftIdx

instead of

let li = readLeftIdx

?

I don't think anyone with programming experience could correctly answer this question unless they also have some specific Haskell experience.

What exactly does "return" do? I don't think someone without Haskell experience has any chance of answering that correctly, because it does not have the same meaning that it does in most languages. You might be able to make a reasonable guess, but you're unlikely to actually get it right.

I think once you're at the point that you can completely understand and answer these questions, the odds are high that you'll appreciate a more economical syntax for these operations.
That makes sense actually. Marketing automation is very hot, the bigger players are not going to bother building that service - not because they can't, but because they can't cater to SMB with their cost models - and hubspot has a loyal customer base.
The problem with the No True Scotsman fallacy is that it's impossible to apply to the internet, where there is always someone out there who will claim anything about anything.

Therefore, in order to have a rational discussion about this, we must apply some sort of filter.

I propose this filter: no-one who is an actual practitioner of FP (someone who uses it to build software, not someone who just talks about it in the internet) will not make the claim you mentioned, i.e. "FP guarantees good code" (I'm quoting you verbatim).

I hope it stands to reason that it doesn't matter what people who've never used FP claim about FP.
MyLG v0.1.9 Free Network Diagnostic Tool
"This time, the stocks are generating cash profits"
Can't you just delete the element node.
Imagine a howling hurricane ×1000
I've heard both good and bad (bad from the internet, good from some friends working there). I get about the same feeling from their interview process as I do from most other large corporations, but the news stories about their warehouse workers are definitely troubling.
my looking glass is a free software utility which combines the functions of the different network probes in one network diagnostic tool.
It would be insanely unfair if this algorithm was based on statistics around economic (or racial) status.
I think what you're referring to is called a "headless CMS", which is an interesting idea and something we can discuss as the project evolves. It may not be a good candidate for core, but a plugin that outputs the data in the format you're looking for wouldn't be that hard to build (once plugins land).

For example, the existing internal API has a backup method that exports all MySQL tables to JSON files. The heavy lifting is already done for you. (It also wraps all your themes and uploads into a TAR along with the JSON files so you have a real, full backup — not just your post content.)

I'd love to explore this more down the road :)
Discussions of the app itself, some expressing doubts that it's real:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12160013

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12144150

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12132344

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12127218

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12116777
Maybe OP means Excel's FlashFill[1]? It's a feature that figures out string manipulations based on a handful of examples, and it pretty much went directly from MSR research on program synthesis into Excel 2013.

[1]: http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/sumitg/flashfi...
A Digital Product Design Process: 2 Years in the Making
Also empirically disproven, even on HN.

It seems there's a phase that some FP programmers go through where they have a zealotry that requires convincing the masses of the glorious wonders of FP. For the most part, they seem to either outgrow the "FP is the One True Way" zealotry, or at least learn to keep it to themselves for the most part.

In fairness, I'd say that I've seen it on HN less in the last year or so than I did before that.
There is a "Not now" link to partially hide the popup.
Yep, my droplet was way too small...forgot to up it before going live.

Anyways, the link to GitHub will be on the homepage soon. As I mentioned earlier, the org repo didn't even exist until late last night!
Why not? As a hardware-centered platform company, car is obviously the next computing platform.
Optimism? It's simple extrapolation and a quick historical reference on how equivalently massive companies hold up over the near-term (5-10 years). I wasn't offering up an optimistic scenario.

In just three years they'll very likely hit $13 to $15 billion in annual profit or so (it'll be $8.5 to $9 billion in the next 4 quarters alone), and have $50+ billion in cash. What is inbound in the next three years that will hammer down upon a network carrying 1.7 billion users, that is still expanding and has no presently known threat to it, while possessing such extreme financial resources?

Absolutely nothing, that's what. No threat other than perhaps Snapchat could get enough scale in that time to be listed as a potential threat to them in the next three years.

Five years: $70 billion in cash, conservatively. $16 to $20 billion in annual profit, assuming a significant slowdown in their ad growth.

Then from the 5 to 10 year span, what's going to come flying in that is going to steal their $70 to $100 billion in cash? Or make their business disappear in just a few years. I can't name any other example of such a wild outcome happening, outside of maybe AOL, and they never had the financial muscle or scale that Facebook already commands.
Of course you can go back.

I still use pine, it's called alpine now, but works basically the same, and is just as fast as it always was.
How do you mean "hard time reading"? Attention span problem, comprehension issues or lack of interest in reading?
It's not that, so much as manual testers will /notice/ that code is slow, and ask questions about it, whereas automated tests will run the script no matter what (unless someone thought about it in advance)

Likewise, you /can/ code an automated test to simulate sudden network loss, but a human will just randomly decide to try it, without someone pre-programming him
I'm not a design expert or necessarily even design literate. Stating up front: I understand the importance of design and think it's a super important profession. If anything, I'm envious of people who have the ability to practice good design.

I have to say that when I read stuff like this it kind of scares me away from trying to become fluent enough in design to practice it, because of where subjectivity seems to hide. I think I understand the principles of contrast, hierarchy, balance, scale, feedback, etc. in theory, it just seems very difficult to holistically judge a design that may be emphasizing different attributes to achieve these characteristics.

Take the complaint about button weight:

> Where thick, dark borders and arrow glyphs used to bulge the buttons toward one’s eye, the buttons now “weigh” so little that to distinguish them is a chore. The same goes for other buttons throughout OS X.

The borders may appear lighter in the displayed photo, but how can I judge contrast without seeing the contrasted element(s) (i.e. the surface on which the buttons rest, the positioning from other UI elements, etc.). Also in some ways, there seems to be more contrast in the new buttons. For instance, the button shapes seem to contrast from each other by not being cutouts of the same rectangular shape. Perhaps that's the only contrast that's really matters here, since another form of contrast may be in place to distinguish this button group?

Similarly the discussion about drop shadows is difficult for me to grapple with. What are the drop shadows on the dock doing for me? It seems like a drop shadow is useful for distinguishing mutable elements (UI controls) from static content, but the dock only serves to launch applications. As a user of Apple products for years, I'm innately trained to understand this, but perhaps this is untrue of a first time macbook owner? I understand that experimental design to test these kinds of things is very difficult, but perhaps it'd be a more convincing argument with some supporting evidence.

Or take the complaint about feedback with the "New Folder" button in Notes. It's true enough that there's no visual feedback on the button itself, however when you click the button a highlighted text field appears above, waiting for you to enter in the folder name. I sort of understand this complaint, but when I tried to play devil's advocate I came up with the explanation that the feedback was actually drawing attention to the next task I needed to do (i.e. naming the folder) instead of the button itself. Which way of seeing this is valid?

I feel like these kinds of conversations are very interesting and important for making design decisions that benefit the largest number of people, but it seems like the conversation often relies on subjective judgements on design elements that could be argued either way.
This is super interesting! And if anyone else is curious about creating a project that monitors the range of RF amplitude and frequency at many data points around the world, then send me your contact info!
I want to see a record of this spectrum (human and non-human made) in frequency and amplitude to see how much it is (and hopefully "has") changed in physical space. I think interesting things would come out of this data.
Sorry, missed your question about imports. It's on the list: https://github.com/Postleaf/postleaf/issues/1
8 Helpful Tips to Make Money Creating Niche Websites and Blogs as an Affiliate
Yup. Looks like I got linked to adinfo.aol.com on both mobile and desktop. The AdChoices icon is common across many platforms (it's from the Digital Advertising Alliance), their list of members is pretty huge[0].

[0] http://www.aboutads.info/participating
I do this a lot of the time, too. And I believe it is ridiculous to have to do it...

Yes, I'm grateful that browsers today make it easy to pwn the DOM.

And it is disgusting that this is often necessary to avoid spammy website behavior. People who don't understand browser internals are forced to contend with popups and forced registration to unveil content indexed by search engines.

Yep I'm looking at you Quora.

Thanks for forcing my mother to register to read the text promised by her google query. Long live ExpertSexchange 3.0.
Repost, because I think it deserves a discussion
Snapglue
I prefer hiding an usb killer.
http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/10/usb-killer-flash-dri...
I agree with the change too. I wish would have thought a bit more about it. To be honest, I never expected HN to pick it up like it did!
It's still a fallacy. Being on the internet doesn't change that.

> I hope it stands to reason that it doesn't matter what people who've never used FP claim about FP.

That doesn't matter. An argument is not a strawman if it has been made by anyone, anywhere, anytime, for any reason. You can't just filter out the people you think don't count.

An argument is only a strawman if it is a false argument, e.g. one that has been invented by the person who is arguing against it.

If you want to have a discussion about the merits of FP, feel free to filter out whoever you like. But you said the argument mentioned in the article is a strawman, and it isn't.
AdWords has been making several big pushes over the last few years that contribute to this.

Among them:

- Pushing advertisers to advertise higher up in the funnel with additional clicks. Things like the push for "ZMOT" (Zero Moment of Truth) and such focus on the branding side of things before people are ready to convert. Google has long had advertisers focus primarily on last click conversions which does not play nicely with tracking for brand efforts.

- Video ad pushes by reps have been pretty big. Video CPMs are much higher than static display images, and that is also why you see every publisher under the sun having a a video for every article that autoplays even if it is a useless annoying video. And why they are looking into auto-generated videos.

- Turning previously free resources into paid plays (Google Product Search)

My gut right now in terms of their future monetization is the continued transition of Gmail from a "regular" mail platform into an algorithmic feed where advertisers have to pay a dynamic, auction-based payment model to get into the inbox. The Promotions tab is the first step in that direction. Gmail ads have been the next step. I would expect them to start adding them spread out through your inbox feed in the not too distant future, and then start drastically tapering brand reach unless you pay up like FB has done.

Additionally, their push for bots and voice search is to have people ask questions and just provide the answer and not give a list of choices. They want to know you well enough where they can guess right, but the options they provide are all paid placements, so you get the most relevant paid placement. It won't happen now, but once voice assistants are an integral part of the mobile experience that people can't live without and Google succeeds in owning the space.
Generally "plow that money into less profitable side ventures" though is the way it ends up, despite the best intentions. Cash cows are the profitable bits, hard to beat Microsoft Office say with a new venture, you want something that is growing not saturated above short term profits.
I don't see where I ever disputed that specialized hardware is better than general purpose hardware at the task for which it is specialized; in fact, I specifically made note of that. Is there a reason you think it refutes a part of the thesis I was presenting?

The claim under contention is that there's some root deficiency of the vNA at computing in general, that perhaps could be surpassed by some ingenious FP-inspired model. If the only "limit" or "inefficiency" of vNA is that it doesn't achieve ASIC level efficient on every task, that's not much of a criticism. Even applied "horribly" to hosting discussion forums, the vNA is light years beyond all other general hardware.

I was under the assumption that a more substantial criticism of vNA was being offered. But the above criticism makes no sense unless it were somehow economical to rearchitect a computer for every distinct problem you plan to work on.
You'll need to add some context for the first sentence.

Regarding the 2nd sentence, go watch the press conference. Trump doesn't want to be in bed with Russia.

"Russia" is being thrown around by the Democrats (in McCarthyite fashion, I might add) to deflect from the troubling info that was in the DNC emails.
That's not entirely accurate.

Microsoft's offer included patents, Japan, and Alibaba. Today that is all worth more than $45B, so their current exit is technically better.
what crappy naming! the essential mechanism is fluid-dynamics not gravity...how confusing
House of Cards had the British version to build on, so it's not entirely a Netflix taste triangulation.

But, the CEO or somebody from Netflix has actually spelled out in the past that though they're taking risks in making a bunch of their own content, the risk is smaller than it has historically been. They know the taste of their audience (on a nearly individual level) better than any entertainment company in history ever has. And, they extract the value of their viewers directly and without middlemen, unlike almost every other entertainment company in history. So, for them, a successful show is one that brings in X number of new subscribers and keeps them around through multiple seasons...and that X number is smaller than it's ever needed to be.

So, you're right; they are triangulating in on very specific sub-genres and very specific audiences in ways that entertainment companies in the past couldn't afford to do. This is long-tail television production. Stranger Things, while it is a niche market, is actually one of the bigger niche markets they've tapped into, thus far. It's gotten far more buzz than a lot of the other Netflix original programming.

So, they're either getting better at the triangulation (likely) or they got lucky with this particular toss at the dart board of niche programming, or maybe it's a little of both. And, maybe the people making this show happened to be particularly passionate about it, and it shows in the attention to detail; they're having fun with it, and it makes it fun for viewers who like this sort of thing (or, are at least nostalgic about it...I don't read/watch Stephen King novels/movies very frequently as an adult, but loved them as a kid).

I find the quality of the Netflix originals to vary pretty wildly, and I don't get hooked on most of them. But, I enjoyed Stranger Things. It's a fun escapist bit of entertainment. It's no House of Cards, or even Orange is the New Black, in terms of quality, but it delivers very effectively on what it promises.

I wonder how well Stranger Things is doing among viewers who aren't old enough to have grown up surrounded by this stuff? I know many of my friends on facebook are hooked, but mostly the ones really talking about it are around my age. It's an interesting phenomenon, I think; the stuff it is paying homage to and modeled after was mostly targeted at kids and young adults, but the people most excited about it are maybe middle aged. Weird how that happens.
I mean that I took a cynical read e.g. skimmed that you were specifically talking about the near term.
In an ideal world this article would not be posted on Facebook.
Harvard Study: Biggest Factor in Divorce Is Husband's Employment Status
I'd like to see something "social", where you "follow" other reviewers (who reviewed something you bought and you trust their review) and build up a reviewer network and then factor in some sort of "trust" percentage (how much you trust the reivewer).
You forgot the most important part: making ads more targeted. More more targeted an ad is, the more you can charge for it. So Google can sell the same number of ads to the same number of advertisers and yet make more money, while advertisers get more bang for their buck.
At this point I can only conclude that you don't want to understand. I've already explained that there were a number of manufacturers who had a vision of a smart phone with a similar form factor to the iPhone. Steve Jobs was a fan of Sony, he wanted to run Mac OS on the VAIO line of laptops. As that didn't work out, he ultimately made his own slim aluminium laptop with chiclet keyboard. Richard Howarth who was involved in designing both the iPhone and the MacBook Air had previously worked at Sony. Before Apple adopted the Sony style their products were plastic and/or colorful.

Apple has always copied, just like they copied much of the current iPhone user interface from their competitors.