skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
This is my own thesis and not really researched in the sense that I can point to any other articles, but it's what I've synthesized from my time as a programmer and studying CS.

There are many camps of programming thought, but I'm going to distill them here to two.

Mechanical: This is, fundamentally, the Turing machine. Assembly, C, Fortran, others, sit in this camp. They're very much concerned with the mechanical act of computation. We don't have high level abstractions (ok, we do, but they're very limited). This doesn't bar us from performing incredible feats of computation or computational thinking. But it does make some things more difficult, particularly the task of viewing the code and understanding what it was intended to model. There's a strong disconnect, then, between our high level concept of the system being developed (specification, requirements) and the low level implementation.

Mathematical: This is lambda calculus. Haskell, erlang, lisp, others, sit in this camp. They're more concerned with mathematical or symbolic understandings of computation. They tend to be less concerned with low level performance (though may still achieve it quite well) and low level implementation details (I don't care if my custom type BTree is implemented as an array under the hood, I care that it behaves in a way that satisfies its definition). This makes translation from specification to implementation almost trivial. With some care, you can practical document both at once with languages like Prolog or Haskell in a single document. The drawback is primarily one of performance. But that can be handled via implementations (FFI, smarter compilers, access to low-level primitives or "unsafe" code).

Hybrid: I'm not sure where to place OO, so I'm going to place it here. In theory, most OO languages should be able to deal with both quite well. In practice, they have historically sat too close to the mechanical side. Or abused the mathematical side to create horribly inefficient models. They offer the, theoretical, abstraction levels of functional languages, but the procedural components (the methods defined in the classes) to have fine control over performance.

You can, technically, achieve any computational task in any language. But the levels of abstractions they provide allow certain domains of problems to be solved almost trivially.

I could make a functional model of a radio system. A functional language or an OO language makes this effort almost trivial. I don't care about the underlying performance, this is a model so I can demonstrate sending messages between two radios and between components within the radios. I need to know that the specification itself is consistent, and, as a bonus, this model can be turned into a simulator for situations where we want more radios than we physically have or can set up in the lab.

Implementing this in C, from a performance perspective for the latter part, makes some sense. But it makes demonstrating that the high level specification and requirements are satisfied and implemented almost impossibly difficult.
Front-End Developer (Minnesota)
I would put forward that it is because live-streaming on social media is not the same as using the phone line. When Facebook chose to shut down her account (which is within its rights) then she still had access to the phone line.

The federally protected right to access the phone network is unaffected. There is no federal requirement that would require Facebook to only shut down an account after receiving a court order.
Isn't this confusing the "free" market with the tax code?

Why is Facebook's tax liability some arcane figure that can only be determined by IRS clout, Facebook lobbying/marketing/lawyers and the revolving door between the private and public sector?
"Our policy only impacted cold calling, and we continued to recruit from these companies through LinkedIn, job fairs, employee referrals, or when candidates approached Google directly. In fact, we hired hundreds of employees from the companies involved during this time period."

It doesn't sound like it was very effective. Cartels in general tend to be unstable, as members have powerful incentives to cheat on the agreement.

It's hard to say if this agreement actually reduced salaries in any significant way, as there were plenty of other companies in the area who were not part of the cartel.
I'd argue that what make FP languages better than non FP languages is when it comes to hiring developers that know FP languages are more flexible.

For example I can expect a scala developer to be able to implement functional principals in say, PHP but not necessarily the other way around.
According to GnuPG (more specifically "gpg (GnuPG/MacGPG2) 2.0.28"), that key does not contain any valid user IDs. Is there some widely used PGP implementation that does accept that? Have you found any other similarly weak keys that GPG will consider valid? If so, I'd find it very interesting as a PGP user, but if it is limited to keys that GPG, at least, recognizes as invalid, I'm not sure what impact it has for me.
My daughter died of a fentanyl overdose one month ago. She was 21.

It was her first time taking it. I assume she thought it was cocaine or something similar and simply took far too much.

If you have children, please teach them about drugs. That means more than "just say no" it means being really, really clear with them that a huge danger is that they get given something that isn't what it is claimed. Sadly, this is especially true if they are young and female and perhaps a little naive.

I expect that my younger children will experiment with drugs even knowing what happened to their sister. I expect their friends will as well.

All I can do now is teach them how quickly their life can end and, perhaps, give them ready access to test kits in the same way that they will have ready access to condoms and std education when the time comes.

Please, if you have a child, talk to them today about fentanyl in particular - most of her friends has never heard of it before she died and had no idea how strong or cheap it was.
This, slightly adjusted, would make a killer Onion headline.
I'm talking more about feminists and the "triggered-happy" women of today.

Seriously, even offering to buy a woman a drink at a college campus is a risky proposition today.

It's no wonder that movements like MGTOW are taking off these days (though I don't see myself as one just to be clear.)
Nobody called the OP an idiot.

The consensus is that physical developer hardware is best managed by developers.

The 'problem' of managing 'large numbers' of 'commercial software licenses' is not a problem with automation; unfortunately it goes against the grain of developers managing their own hardware.

It seems the real problem in the OP's organization is management unwilling to delegate and constantly searching for centralized solutions to trivial 'problems'.
Moz makes a few hundred million a year, should be enough to develop a browser, no? At a certain point enlarging a dev team becomes counter-productive.
> That implies running Windows, though.

Indeed. My knowledge on Linux is pretty limited but I seem to remember that Nvidia fixed something which let you use Pax/grsecurity protections you otherwise couldn't. This still implies loading a binary blob but certain kernel protections could still help you IIRC (DEP?). I could be misremembering. I can't check since grsecurity set their twitter to protected.

I'm not sure what Chrome does aside from having a separate GPU process and whether or not any sanitizing takes place. They're pretty good with stuff like that so it would surprise me if some amount of protection wasn't offered.

Edit: There are some patches from the Pax folks for Nvidia drivers which I believe help with PAX_USERCOPY[1][2]? Although that may just be for getting it working...

[1] https://grsecurity.net/~paxguy1/

[2] https://grsecurity.net/~paxguy1/nvidia-drivers-367.35-pax.pa... (example)
Ask HN: Websites/Services like nugget.one
I recently found this amazing service called nugget.one. Basically they email you a cool/interesting SaaS idea every day. While some ideas were a little out there (machine learning and pizza toppings?), others were actually really nice business opportunities.

I am wondering if there are other services out there like this. (Something free would always be nice).
Asking is different than demanding. They can't use it if they didn't receive an answer.

They can ask, and then the candidate can choose whether they want to answer or not. It may be beneficial to the candidate to answer, or they may not really care if the company knows.

It accomplishes the same thing but doesn't limit speech.

Sometimes a job candidate might even want them to ask so they can set the minimum bar of what they are looking for without appearing to bring up compensation first.

I would take the same stance with any of the other "can't ask" questions (they can ask, but can't demand).

BTW, there's no law that says an employer can't ask about religion, children, etc. The law says they can't discriminate. It's just recommended practice to not ask those questions to not give any evidence for a discrimination lawsuit.

The law says, "an unlawful employment practice is established when the complaining party demonstrates that race, color, religion, sex, or national origin was a motivating factor for any employment practice"

https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm

But exceptions are allowed when it is relevant to the job.
A casting director can certainly discriminate based on age, sex, etc.
Same meaning as hindsight is 20/20.
Apple did initially claim Facetime would be an open standard.

> Upon the launch of the iPhone 4, Jobs stated that Apple would immediately start working with standards bodies to make the FaceTime protocol an "open industry standard".

claims Wikipedia. Other websites also highlight the "open standard" it was supposed to become:

[1]: http://www.fiercedeveloper.com/story/facetime-open-standard-...
[2]: https://redd.it/1xuzif
[3]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2605498
[4]: https://discussions.apple.com/thread/4547345?start=0&tstart=...
[5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FaceTime
That may be true, but the joke part comes when you actually want to develop new abstractions that are type-safe.

For example you cant write a thread-safe map container in Go without sacrificing type safety (i.e. one that would not crash the program when there are concurrent writes to the map).

The standard library doesn't offer one either.

This means you end up copy pasting the lock related code for every map you want to make thread safe. You have to remember to declare and initialise its lock, to use that lock every time you access it, and to remember to unlock it.

Now for some things, this cost isn't too bad. For others, it makes the language a joke.

As a result, Go is a toy, or at least, a non-general-purpose language. If the problem you're solving fits its limited set of built-in abstractions, its great. Otherwise, its a disaster.

In my experience, well written programs evolve over time to gain new carefully chosen abstractions that cleanly implement shared underlying concepts of the problem domain. These abstractions often require the use of generics.

When this happens in a Go project, however, you're out of luck. Even worse, developing primarily in Go means distorting your thinking to fit its limits.

This is more or less true in any language, and its not a binary thing. Languages are all over the place on the ladder of abstraction (with lisps being close to the top, Go near the bottom).

p.s. Java also suffers because it added generics too late: by the time they were added there was already a clear picture painted of "idiomatic Java". To make matters worse lambdas were also added way too late, and the verbosity of type declarations is still staggeringly high. However, modern Java is a much better language than Go.
That's tragic. I'm so sorry for your loss.
Nothing overrated about it. Pure functions lack state. Without state, no state bugs. State bugs make up a great share of bugs in this world. Thus your program written in a functional language lacks those bugs.

Also just nice to have a = function, instead of having each class implement a .equals() method (looking at you, java).
gnome-terminal is slow. Try st, or rxvt.
the key is still the same length, it just has a lot of zeroes.
Thanks for the recommendation. I'll check it out!
> The reason why Google didn't offer cloud services earlier is because they were using up all of their cloud.
[citation needed]

It was a (poor) business decision not to go for public cloud earlier, but not driven by datacenter capacity.
I'm not a millenial, but this quote sums up my attitude towards dating

> “For an average date, you’re going to spend at least two hours, and in that two hours I won’t be doing something I enjoy,”
Thanks for the reply Mitchell! Definitely don't want my criticism to come off as unconstructive. As I mentioned, we'll continue to use Terraform; I'm optimistic it'll improve as Hashicorp iterates. I'm just naturally conservative coming from an ops background.

I try to pick boring technologies that are battle tested through years of tech sector use; there's no glory for being on the bleeding edge, with only pain when things go south. So goes the ops struggle.
China's 'straddling bus' debuts above city roads
> "give me a manifest and I will make the world look like it"

This is how Terraform works if you want a one-time setup. You can just throw the state away after that if you want. But Terraform is supposed to be used (and is very very often used) to do ongoing minimal changes to infrastructure, often dozens of times per day.

In this scenario, Terraform's configurations are completely declarative: it is a state of the world you want to reach, it isn't what to do next.

However, we require the state file in order to find the resources we own and then refresh the state of the world so we can do a diff.
Part of me thinks it's a lack of direction which has limited Mozilla/Firefox in the past/currently(?). Like the dropping of 64-bit support (which they reversed) which I think showed a clear lack of direction on what they wanted to do. Granted this was a few years ago now but it was still clear at that point that 64-bit provided a number of useful (security) features over 32-bit software.

Maybe I'm wrong but that's just how it appears as someone looking in from the outside and who doesn't use Firefox on a daily basis.
It's a polite way of calling someone a know-it-all.
Oh it certainly was political. I did not mean to imply that they only targeted conservative groups, but they absolutely did not fairly assess all "social benefit" applications without regard for political sentiment.

Unfortunately, their evaluations were political when they should not have been. They tried to fix a problem with "social benefit" applications in general, but keywords were the wrong way to do it. This is not currently a job for automation, they must evaluate all applications fairly. Or to put it differently, the optimal solution for the problem of fraudulent applications does not include a PR disaster and FBI investigation. Hopefully they do better next time.

I think the perspective people miss on this, is that mistakes were made, but it wasn't personal. The system broke, but not in a criminal intent kind of way. Maybe the best way to say it, is the IRS stuck their foot in politics, and then tried to shake it off and hopefully clean their shoes.

I don't mind continuing the discussion, but I'm sorry for the flame-bait. I volunteer the thread for detach-and-mark-off-topic.
Air Force Declares F-35A Ready for Combat
Had the same thought - I'm a tech guy not sales, will these guys work for commission and stake in the company in lieu of salary? (Bootstrapping at the moment - have 3 customers after a month and ready to ramp up)
On the contrary, I work at BigCorp where every machine is locked down - no administrator access, no sudo, etc. People routinely install programs to C:\ simply because it is writable. If you need admin access to install it? Forget it, open an IT ticket.

I've never heard of anyone quitting because of this issue.
The Uber-Didi buyout needs government approval, and might not get it
Did an American City Finally Build a Good Streetcar?
If only we locked up all the guilty. The world would be behind bars.
> Monday morning quarterback: A person who analyzes the mistakes they made they day after they've made them. Derived from complaining over quarterbacks on monday morning after the sunday game. [0]

[0]: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=monday%20morn...
Well, private browsing really functions as mechanism to discourage people from routinely deleting their cookies. (Which, according to a mid-2000s report, was an extremely common user activity.) Firefox always had an option to delete history/cookies on exit.
So, using some values off the Web, notably 0.0077g/m^2 for the weight of graphene, and computing the mass of a spherical shell at Pluto's radius, roughly -- 40 AU from a central star, I get (using GNU Units):

You have: 4 * pi * 40au^2 * 0.0077g/m^2
You want: million gigatonne
* 86.618649
/ 0.011544858

How's that compare to the mass of one typical rocky planet?

You have: earthmass / 86.6 million gigatonne
You want:
Definition: 68986.619

So, 1/70,000th an Earth Mass.

Turns out that there's not all that much carbon on Earth -- it's 730 ppm, but that's still a total abundance of about 50x what would be needed for our Pluto-diameter shell.

On the other hand, that means that at best, using an entire Earth's worth of carbon, you could create a Pluto-orbital-radius graphene Dyson sphere 50 atoms thick.

But Pluto's kinda way out there. What if we make the sphere the size of Earth's orbit instead. Surely that's going to save us a few orders of magnitude of matter, right?

Not quite. About 1.5 OOM. We go from ~90 million gigatonne to 2 million gigatonne. The difference between squares and cubes matters. So, on the positive side, you get about 2,000 layers of graphene, but you're still using up all of Earth's available carbon to do that.

There are more abundant minerals -- silicon or magnesium or iron, for example. But you'd still be using planetary-mass quantities for any substantial structure (or multiples of structures orbiting independently and forming a sphere).

Which is what Dyson's also proposed. And my thought is that a Dyson "sphere" comprised of, say, multiple flat sheets of stuff orbiting a star, would tend to have a few issues, such as solar wind, and occasional emissions from incomplete closure. You've also got the question of how you're going to move all that captured energy from where it's been captured to where you plan to use it.

And you still need a cold end to your hot end.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_the_chemical_el...

http://www.geek.com/science/geek-answers-what-is-graphene-15...

http://www.mathopenref.com/spherearea.html

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/solar/soldata3.ht...
FF and Chrome both gave me Japanese in Japan until I did the ncr trick. I think both browsers sniff your locale in various ways.
Do you have any studies to back that claim.

I could argue the opposite, FP hide away the details per design as it is declarative and not imperative being imperative per wikipedia

"Imperative programming focuses on describing how a program operates."

Therefore are probably bad working in constrained environments or low level programming.
Algebraic data types and pattern matching are equivalent to having a class hierarchy and implementing the same method for each class.

The idea that Haskell or OCaml or SML are specially suited for compiler writing is a nineties truism that is thrown around a lot, never backed by any evidence whatsoever.
I mean, if they actually did move their HQ (ie majority of costs, execs, etc) to Singapore, then sure. And that'd be totally fair.

What maybe doesn't seem fair (haven't thought about it deeply enough to say for sure) is pretending your HQ is where you really just have a satellite while the core of your IP creation, expenses, exec decision making etc is in the US. It's like you're getting the benefits of being in the US (whatever you think they are), but not paying the full price for those benefits.

What I hate about rules like this is that it basically forces you to follow them. You have a fiduciary duty to shareholders as an officer and/or director, and so you have hard time justifying not using a technique like this.
This is a superficial view of readability, focusing on terseness and perceived syntactical elegance.

"True" readability is achieved through a consistent structuring of your program, which has to conform to the expectations of the reader.

Programmers must first build this expectation from picking up patterns in the code, which emerge no matter if you use pattern matching or an equivalent structure using the available language constructs.
> The world only needs so much wheat and there's not much you can do to make it need more.

People can eat wheat or meat. You can make meat from wheat. Lots of poor people are happy to eat more meat (or any meat at all), if the price comes down. Demand for wheat is elastic.
Yes, instead you have parameter passing bugs (what, it's not state if it's not an implicit global variable?).

I suspect the bugs have more to do with what is considered an acceptable design pattern (and resulting cognitive load) than the state-passing style.
The article is all about concurrency, but to me that would just be a bonus if it happens to be easier.

The main benefit that functional programming appears to claim is that you can spend much less time resolving bugs like "I got home and my dog had turned into a zebra for some reason!" Eventually tracking it down to the fact that if a neighbor on the left changes a tire on a certain stretch of highway during the week of a full moon, then their neighbor's dog will turn into a zebra. Not for any rational reason, not because anyone intended that to happen, but because no one happened to think to explicitly prevent it in the interactions between shared mutable loosely-typed state and layers of indirection and abstraction.

I don't know yet whether functional programming really helps with that, but it sounds like FP would make it a lot more difficult to end up with situations like that. It does however make me wonder what the annoying types of common bugs are in functional programming that a future paradigm will try to prevent...
Sure, if you want to. But I'd rather just see how things are going with people in general through the day, not one or two in particular.

Right now there are feeds I've seen where I don't even see today's updates at all because their algorithms deem previous days' posts more important.
Pay=marginal productivity. There's a field called economics.
The important thing is that everyone at least knows, or could know if they educated themselves, what she did. The next important thing is whether or not given that information, she will become the next President.

So not to spell out the obvious... but, either she's the next President, and very clearly not a felon, or she is not the next President, and exactly one Administration will have a chance at proving she is a felon, until the statue of limitations runs out.

Personally, I think it's a crazy bet Hillary is taking. Her life is on the line with this election. The best thing Obama could have done for Hillary is charge Hillary himself, and not let her take this risk, and then pardon her if necessary. When she ultimately sees her day in court, you probably want that to happen under a friendly Administration. Some sort of plea agreement perhaps. Double jeopardy is required for Hillary to be safe from a long statue of limitations.

I don't think the President can pardon someone who hasn't been charged yet. So even if she wins this election, she could still be charged by the next administration.