skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The server appears to be timing out but the title and concept reminds me of this: https://panopticlick.eff.org/
As the other comment says, that doesn't really make sense. However, I have had to debug a codebase where lisps unhygienic macros led to extremely weird errors. The second time that happened in a big project I decided that schemes hygienic macros are superior. The extra cruft writing them is worth it. I have literally spent weeks debugging weird macro errors introduced years after the macro was first written.
It's a notification that something will happen later -- like all notifications.

Look, Microsoft pushing Windows 10 upgrades is really annoying but that doesn't mean one has the skew the facts to make it seem worse than it is. It took me many clicks to install Windows 10 despite being nagged about it for 12 months.
One of the factors for Rest of the world vs China gap could be the ticket size of a cab ride. A 5km Uber ride in India/China/SE-Asia costs $1.5 on an average, while in developed countries its $15 on an average (10X). So, I guess, it's value over volume for Uber and markets that are on fast-track to profitability.

source - http://www.priceoftravel.com/6536/price-of-a-5-kilometer-ube...
A lot of the comments here seem to focus only on the progress we've made rather than what AI should be (if it was true to the name). With "AI", sure I can tell Siri to send a certain email to a certain person. That's pretty damn impressive when I think back to what was possible only a few years earlier. But it's not intelligent. Nowhere near. And honestly, it doesn't save you that much work. It just performs some preprogrammed tasks given some unambiguous input that follows a regular pattern. And even that trips up Siri a ton. Yes, it's cool that you can identify pictures or have a program read your handwriting, but none of that gets us any closer to a program that behaves like a human when I tell it to do something (instead of sending an email or text that I specify, it could draft one on its own; instead of showing me a Wikipedia article when I ask what something is it should explain to me in layman's terms and give me a summary). AI is impressive in terms of progress, but is it really impressive in terms of what it promises to bring? Is it really even progressing in the right direction? Personally, I don't think so.
Meet the man who turns dead animals into drones
Thanks so much for the answer! :D

But are you absolutely sure that my brief characterization of Gödel's incompleteness theorem is so off...? Wikipedia phrases it "no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an effective procedure (i.e., an algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the arithmetic of the natural numbers. For any such formal system, there will always be statements about the natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system." [1] In what way is that (materially) different from my characterization?

On Gödel's second incompleteness theorem, that "the system [as defined above] can not demonstrate its own consistency", I think we agree. The logical consequences of that which you bring up all seem very reasonable to me.

But the real question as I see it is why you guys have abandoned Russel's ambitions to formalize all of mathematics. Why is his efforts so often described as more or less hopeless, in light of Gödel's results? As I see it (and as I interpret your answer) all of mathematics can be formally proven within ZFC, in machine readable/checkable form. Why not do it...? Or, perhaps, rather, why characterize it as "hopeless" in any sense?

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_...
I want to see people's list of reasons for why not lisp.

Edit: Ok, this is not trolling. I quite liked Lisp and actually had implemented a version of common lisp from scratch based the Guy Steele's CL reference back in the undergrad time. I just found that beyond academic and a few Emacs packages, I didn't use Lisp at all, for one reason or the other. I just want to hear people's reason for not picking Lisp for their work.
> What I mean by “code in an object language is data in the metalanguage” is that, in the metalanguage in which you're writing a compiler or interpreter, the object language program that you're processing is represented as a data structure (say, as a syntax tree). It's just a triviality, I'm not saying anything really deep.

I understood what you were saying, and didn't ask for an explanation. I just don't see why you felt the need to correct me on my calling first=class functions "code as data" and substitute your own definition that had nothing to do with what I was saying.

> My definition of functional programming is “using (procedures that compute) mathematical functions whenever possible”. A mathematical function is a mapping from values to values, so if a language doesn't have a good notion of (possibly compound) value, then you're going to run into trouble writing procedures that compute mathematical functions.

Again, I didn't ask what your definition was, because it wasn't relevant to the conversation.

You're basically interrupting me to tell me I'm not using the same definitions of words as you are, and it's not particularly endearing. If you don't understand what I'm saying, I'll be happy to explain. If you do, however, understand what I'm saying well enough to correct me on my usage of the English language, then my usage of the language has been clear enough for my goals, so I wouldn't be interested in your corrections even if they represented HN's common usage (which they don't).
No. His definition describes the word as it's actually used.

If I open a hot dog stand, I may have incorporated only a month ago, but I haven't founded a startup.

--

This reminds me of one of my favorite HN posts ever. It's about dictionaries, good and bad.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7772557
I am just curious what is the purpose of these kind of apps? and is it real time data?
https://linuxcritic.wordpress.com/2015/03/29/change-screen-b...
I'm sorry but I don't see how this is an answer to my question.
Tried Mint lately? It's been mighty fine distribution the last years.
How's that? The algorithms have the same goal - find the posterior distribution. The time to get to that distribution is what is important and what is compared, provided that both algorithms get proper results. How they do it underneath is irrelevant for the user who waits.

That's like saying that comparing a horse cart and an automobile is comparing apples and oranges.

That being said, there are other things where Stan might fare better. User familiarity, or maturity, or personal taste...
For starters, it often forces others to run the same software and allows privacy-violating corporations to earn more than responsible corporations.
In case you decide to go with a Dash button anyways, I made it easier: https://github.com/ipartola/amadash

I like the dash buttons because for the price you actually get decent value. Compared to an ESP8266 board, you also get the button, the case, and the battery. The interface for it is not th best, but this actually lets you monitor for many button presses from a single Linux node, so I think this is the cheapest solution.

That is not to discourage anyone from learning how to solder, or make their own electronics, but in case you have a bunch of these Dash buttons around already.
Have you checked Jolla [1] with a keyboard other half ?

[1] https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/2028347278/tohkbd-the-o...
Well, no, I'm not confusing powerful and popular. I'm asking why, for all lisp's power, there's almost no examples of that power actually doing anyone any good.

Is it because most projects don't need something powerful? The benefits of that power aren't actually that great compared to the rest of the lisp baggage?

We have this trope of the smug lisp weenie and there's definitely a whiff of high wizardry around lisp, but who's actually shipping anything with it?
I think they are counting how often the distro subpage on Distrowatch is accessed.
> I just don't see why you felt the need to correct me on my calling first=class functions "code as data"

Because first-class functions aren't “code as data”. When you have a first-class function, the only thing you can do with it is call it. If it were a data structure, you could analyze its constituent parts.

> You're basically interrupting me to tell me I'm not using the same definitions of words as you are,

The Wikipedia article you linked says:

“In computer science, functional programming is a programming paradigm—a style of building the structure and elements of computer programs—that treats computation as the evaluation of mathematical functions [emphasis mine] and avoids changing-state and mutable data.”

The emphasized part is just what I said. That a mathematical function is a mapping from values to values is unquestionable - it's not something I'm saying, it's a mathematical fact. So if you can't express compound values, you're limited to a world where mathematical functions can only manipulate primitive values.
For people living in Beijing, this is really a bad news.

Didi and Uber China have been in fierce competition for quite a long time, both of them gave consumers HUGE discount. For example, Uber is showing me a promotion which I can go as far as 5 KM around at the cost of just 5 RMB (0.75$).

After merging, I'm afraid we won't see such a low price anymore.
He's coming out with a new movie about isolation in the digital age. I am very excited to see it.
Don't fly to Sydney then! I don't know what devil-deal was done, but the app won't allow you to summon an UberX inside the airport boundaries.
'Eccentric Orbits' chronicles the stunning failure and revival of Iridium
https://github.com/phacility/phabricator

wow. Why is this not more famous?
The only people I know who don't use headphones are both teenagers and reviled by the people around them. If what you claim is the case, public transport would be a wasteland of pop music and clash of clans sound effects. I highly suspect your friends aren't representative in the least of the general population.
Fury Road is supposed to be the same Max as the other movies, unless I misunderstand you.
I don't quite see why you can't do the same with xml; maybe it needs some more typing, but it is expressing the same thing.

<paws>
<health status="ok"/>
<health status="ok"/>
<health status="ok"/>
<health status="ok"/>
</paws>

i thought that the main advantage of json was that it can be used as is (code as data) in javascript, but the problem here of course is that without a parser/validator one can inject tons of malicious code. If you are not on javascript then you can't do without a parser / in memory tree structure - and that's the same DOM model once again.

Json needs a bit less typing, now is that really such a significant difference? i think that adoption in matters of markup is more like a fashion - once people got the hang of it then it seems natural and goes without explanation.

i would say that there is one major difference - binary or text; as long as its text then it doesn't quite matter how you structure your markup; if you need your data to be of small size then you will have to compress it; however the parsing of a text tree will usually take more time than the serialization of a binary structure (by several factors);

Therefore you will use text markup where application speed is not very important, or where speed of development is more important than application performance, or you will use it for complicated configuration data (and your users will hate you because a name value format like ini files is easier to handle - well, mostly)
If ms would have called it windows 8.1.2 and installed it via the regular automatic windows update, would people have been equally upset?
Since when are high taxes a problem for startups? Most of them don't generate any profits to be taxed. :)

I run a "normal" profitable software business in Germany and taxes + compulsory levies are really a burden here. But some VC funded startup that won't generate one penny for the next 5 years? They don't care about taxes.

If taxes were something to consider startups would keep far away from Berlin.
Proceedings of ACM SIGGRAPH 2016 (Open Access for Limited Time)
Protocals that are intentionally crippled by requiring a block chain action are not helpful. These aren't things that need to be monetized; that might even bias the protocols into being bad for users and developers.
Not hard-nosed at all - Apple was holding pretty much all the cards!
I've looked through a friend's copy and I have to say, it's pretty amateurish work. Not worth the asking price, imo. These interview vids are actually more interesting than what I saw in Volume I.
Much to easy to read over, much less likely to get syntax errors on a merge tool mistake, internalise all you like to make fewer mistakes and still don't do it and there will be fewer mistakes. Even if you're so amazing you could never make that mistake yourself a future maintainer might, a tool might and your benefit for taking that risk is zero.

I hate it because it's just so silly. Do we use a feature that has no benefit and carries risk? Do we really need a statistical analysis for this one?
So this list means that there is no antitrust law in the US? Because I count twice as many American as Chinese companies on that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_companies_by_r...

Fact is, China has monopoly and merger control laws.
Nobody seems to consider that the extra space can be used for a bigger battery instead of a smaller phone.
Yes, because it is clearly a huge change from Windows 8.1.
One of my computers has the same configuration and there's a night and day difference between the Apple and Microsoft approach to privacy.

Microsoft is gathering analytics data plain and simple. Everything is turned on by default, some of which can't even be disabled.

Most of the Apple connections are feature-related (geod, appstored, akd, inappurchased, iCloud if you made the mistake of enabling it, etc). There are notable exceptions in Spotlight searches and the about dialog. Apps can be pretty bad, thank the lax US privacy laws, the industry's lack of backbone and Apple's disinterest for that one.

Ultimately it's a question of intent and trust. Microsoft has shown that they're willing to use dark patterns to get their way and force invasive analytics on their users. Apple hasn't done that yet.
Thank $whatever for that. Go rust. Sanity prevailing.
still though how does one monetise on those users to justify an 1B investment ?
Jean Liu, the president of Didi, is the daughter of Chinese businessman and Lenovo founder Liu Chuanzhi, and the granddaughter of Liu Gushu, a senior executive banker at the Bank of China.

Travis Kalanick is not.
I just order my ESP8266 bare bones from Banggood, about $3, free shipping and if you order them in bulk you save even more.

The ESP8266 works great as a standalone device and you can even flash it with the Arduino firmware, though I prefer NodeMCU.
Additional Siggraph 2016 content: http://www.siggraph.org/learn/conference-content
Royce Rolls Out Luxury Autonomous Car for VIP Transport WithRed Laser Carpet
? Why do you claim they're trying to sell themselves?
And then Lyft mergers with Uber.

I wouldn't be surprised.
Recharging the phone and the cost of the phone are the things that are not going to change, regardless of what happens with the headphones, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up.

> Bluetooth is easier than plugging in headphones.

Until it isn't, like needing to re-pair the devices, keep them charged, switch between multiple devices, etc. It's a hassle that I don't want to have to think about. I've got bluetooth headphones, but I never use them because they're a pain in the butt (and don't work with everything I want to use headphones with, anyhow). I don't understand people that are for removing functionality from their devices.
The last 2-3 years of progress have come about a decade earlier than most people expected. Many people have some catching up to do in determining exactly where we are.

Do we have general intelligence? No, but we have audio generation from pure video and can change an image to match any art style and reasonably good self driving cars.
Fighter aircraft engine comparison
I'd also like unicorns towing magic carpets and appreciate the sarcasm, self driving cars are not the 'unicorn' anymore. Uber is actively investing in prepping for a self-driving world.[0][1]

https://newsroom.uber.com/mapping-ubers-future/
http://www.theverge.com/2016/7/31/12338268/uber-maps-investm...
Lightning wouldn't be any more difficult than an audio jack — I'm not sure why you think it would be. Agreed that USB would be a nightmare, but thankfully that's not really a plausible scenario for an iPhone.
Thanks, that's helpful. Is the IPCC criticism gathered in one place somewhere, or would it require reading a lot of different sources?
That's only the direct tax on income. Don't forget VAT, high petrol taxes, high electricity taxes. I'd say your total tax rate is somewhere around 70% if you take all that into account.

Also the pensions aren't something to write home about really. (There's already politicians starting to talk that everyone should get a standard pension - no matter how much they paid into the system. Give it a few decades and we might arrive there).
Barliman's synthesis is based on the "relational interpreter" approach described in this 2012 Scheme Workshop paper:

William E. Byrd, Eric Holk, and Daniel P. Friedman.
miniKanren, Live and Untagged: Quine Generation via Relational Interpreters (Programming Pearl).
Proceedings of the 2012 Workshop on Scheme and Functional Programming, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2012.

http://webyrd.net/quines/quines.pdf

https://github.com/webyrd/2012-scheme-workshop-quines-paper-...

The basic idea is to write an interpreter as a relation in a constraint logic programming language (miniKanren, in this case). Since the interpreter is a relation, there is no real distinction between "input" arguments and "output" values. More generally, arguments to the relational interpreter can be partially-instantiated terms that contain logic variables representing unknown subexpressions.

Since the interpreter for "miniScheme" is fully relational, running the interpreter "forwards" to generate a value from a given expressions, or running the interpreter "backwards" to generate an expression that evaluates to a given value, are essentially the same operation. The only difference is where the logic variables are placed in the query to the relational interpreter.

But the approach is more general than just running the interpreter forward or backward. Logic variables can be used in both the expression to be evaluated, and in the expected value. This is how we can generate quines (expressions that evaluate to themselves) in miniKanren directly from the mathematical definition of a quine, for example. The query

(run N (q) (evalo q q))

will produce N quines, including a quine that is alpha-equivalent to the canonical Scheme quine

((lambda (x)
(list x (list (quote quote) x)))
(quote
(lambda (x)
(list x (list (quote quote) x)))))

This example shows some of the generality of the relational interpreter approach---program inversion applied to a Scheme interpreter would not be able to generate quines.

The search is done over all possible terms in "miniScheme," a Turing-complete subset of Scheme that supports higher-order variadic functions, recursion, lists and pairs, lexical scoping/shadowing, etc., and that has been extended with pattern-matching.

Does that help?
> Also I find counted strings preferable for most tasks, but nul-terminated have the advantage of working so nicely with the ptr++ operation.

Is this:

while (foo != '\0') {
*bar++ = *foo++;
}

really that much nicer than this:

while (i != len) {
bar[i++] = foo[i++];
}

?

Or even this:

for (; i != len; i++) {
bar[i] = foo[i];
}

?

Don't do this, though:

while (i != len) {
bar[i] = foo[i++];
}

(that's the road to undefined behavior... better watch out for them sequence points!)

> There was real insight behind C's minimalistic string handling.

There really wasn't, though. The simplicity of C's string handling is deceptive. It's full of nuances and inadequacies when used the way the Good Book* describes, and that's the way it's usually used. You're really better off rolling your own string abstraction, or using some library such as bstrings, or even compiling as C++ and using std::string instead (if your C happens to otherwise compile as C++, that is).

* K&R
A Weapon for Readers by Tim Parks (2014)
strncat() is not like strncpy() - it always nul-terminates the result.

I think your strlen() issue is a bit overblown. Either you get the string from a function that explicitly produces valid strings, in which case you know that it's a valid string already; or you get it from a raw bunch of bytes which tends to come with a size attached, giving you all the information you need to either check if it's a valid string or append a nul-terminator yourself.
"Studying Moore's Law and the history of technology, it's clear we're not going to stick around with something analogue for long"

Dediu didn't study the basics of sound reproduction, which are all analogue. All the fancy ones and zeros end up in a stupidly innacurate shaking paper cone. Ignoring a few esoteric exceptions, that's the best that we've got.
There are two reasons that I don't think this is the same issue as putting a copyright notice on every single page.

1. Each page of a book is not meaningful in of itself in the same way that a particular function in a file is meaningful in of itself. So, there's no real worry that the text will be moved to another place without the appropriate notice being copied along with it (citations and quotations are usually under fair use, and citing a work is usually the only thing you need to do if you copy part of a work).

2. Pages in a book are not like files. If you were talking about pamphlets, the analogy would be more clear. It is not expected that people will tear out pages from a book and then stick them into a new book. It is also not expected that people will only be given a single chapter from a book rather than the whole book. If any of those cases were considered "normal use" of the book, then I would definitely expect people to put a copyright notice on every page.

In addition, it isn't common for people to apply different licenses to different pages of the same book. Usually the license and copyright are the same for the entire book.

Not to mention that IMO it is aesthetically pleasing to have a nice header in each file, and it doesn't have any ambiguity when you read the code of a project what license applies to which file.

Also, it's how all GNU projects do it and I trust their lawyers and opinion on how to correctly display licensing information. It also mentions that this is the recommended way of displaying the license in the actual license text itself. So there's that.
Kudos to Uber. They did better than Google.
Quote:
We have too much respect for the printed word, too
little awareness of the power words hold over us. We
allow worlds to be conjured up for us with very little
concern for the implications. We overlook glaring
incongruities. We are suckers for alliteration,
assonance, and rhythm. We rejoice over stories, whether
fiction or “documentary,” whose outcomes are flagrantly
manipulative, self-serving, or both. Usually both. If a
piece of writing manifests the stigmata of literature—
symbols, metaphors, unreliable narrators, multiple
points of view, structural ambiguities—we afford it
unlimited credit. With occasional exceptions, the only
“criticism” brought to such writing is the kind that
seeks to elaborate its brilliance, its cleverness, its
creativity. What surprised me most when I first began
publishing fiction myself was how much at every level a
novelist can get away with.