skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
To the point on MS-SQL, tbh, if you need MS-SQL, Azure for SQL proper, or Azure SQL will both be far less expensive than on any other cloud platform, offsetting any pricing difference for your application VMs even.

I'll be testing some latency between DO and Azure just so I can use some of Azure's services while keeping my applications on DO. Also considering Database Labs (databaselabs.io) for PostgreSQL on DO. Though I do like some of Azure's other offerings... Azure Tables are pretty nice if your needs fit the paradigm, even wrote some node.js wrappers to make access a lot easier a couple years ago, if I go with Azure will likely update them.
you can get ubuntu bash into ConEmu with just:

-new_console bash ~
It's clearly not a popular view, but Google have definitely got a lot more professional at promoting their products through HN and similar sites.

I doubt they're that different from Amazon or other companies we regularly see at the top of the front page though.
I'd add to this. I think to really learn programming, you have to have a specific goal of something to build. This gives purpose and direction to your learning. Not many people can learn much by playing around with basic syntax - adding, subtracting, if-elseing, text input and output - and trying to wade through vast standard libraries and ecosystems of third-party libraries without a goal in mind that they have some motivation to reach.

You gotta decide on something to build. It doesn't have to be anything big and fancy, or something that a company or user would pay for. Could be just automating a task that you have to perform a lot, or just something that you think would be cool. And of course it has to make sense to perform with the platform that you're learning. You don't want to try and build a web app with assembly, for example. But you could get some kind of microcontroller that you can program in assembly and try to automate some electronics stuff around the house or something like that. Doesn't matter if there's an easier way to do it or not, it just matters that you built it and you figured out how to do it.
To the author: I know that TFA includes Ansible in its list of crazy tools, but after reading the list of complaints I think Ansible is actually more or less what you're looking for.

- Ansible needs no centralized server.

- Ansible does everything over SSH, so you don't need to install client software on all your machines.

- Ansible can be configured to fail loudly when it fails ("ansible -vvvv"), so if a task you specify doesn't work it's generally not hard to figure out why.

- YAML as used in Ansible isn't really a DSL; it's just used to produce a very human-readable text recipe for bootstrapping a system. You can complicate things beyond that if you want to, but by default you're just specifying a list of tasks to be run on the target machine serially. You don't have to learn a programming language like Ruby to be productive with it.

- Ansible has a bunch of modules to make things like creating users, setting up popular applications, etc. easy, but if you want to you can ignore all that and just specify each task in your "playbook" as a shell command. So if you can provision a machine by hand from the shell, all you need to do to write a functioning Ansible playbook is learn a little YAML syntax and Ansible's "shell" and "command" modules.

- Vagrant supports Ansible as a provisioner, so if you want to do local testing you can pick up your Ansible playbook and feed it to Vagrant to produce a local VirtualBox VM configured to your specifications. Then once it's working you can use the same playbook to configure your remote machine(s).

I resisted configuration management when the choices were Chef and Puppet for many of the same reasons articulated in the post; they were heavyweight, complicated solutions designed for large-scale use. Ansible removed all my complaints. It's easy to pick up, requires very little software, and when making design decisions generally goes with the simplest thing that could possibly work.
I use AWS extensively and it has many benefits. That said, I think they need to rethink some thing if they want to stay ahead of Google, Digital Ocean, etc.

Some thoughts:

## More focus on core products

- Still no IPv6, it's 2016.

- EC2/VPC (compute) didn't have a simple NAT-instance until a few months ago.

- S3 (storage) still has nothing like Nearline (GCE) and Glacier is so confusing and complicated that few bother using it.

- ELB (Load Balancer) still has scaling problems (with bursts).

- Still only a single public key per instance, why?

- Can only use ACM certificates for CloudFront if they are in us-east-1 (despite ACM being available in other geographies and CloudFront is global). Nothing major but weird.

- S3 has like a handful of different ways of setting permissions (per file, per bucket, iam, and some weird old xml-format). Why not simplify this?

## Interfaces are terrible

- Basically the entire console UI is low quality.

- Same with APIs, they could use a lot more polish.

- This is the API call to create a CloudFront (CDN) distribution: http://pastie.org/10931494 (no offence, but it looks like a group of schizophrenic monkeys designed that API).

## Think less about press-releases

- Apparently AWS force everyone to write the press-release for every product before designing[1].

- While it's good to keep the end-goal in mind I think many important details are lost.

- The press-release-thinking focus too much on features and too little on quality and (even more important) refinements to existing things.

## Release fewer features

- Every year on ReInvent [AWS conference] they tout how many hundreds of new features they've released[2]. I wish they'd release far fewer features and make them great instead (+ refine existing stuff).

[1] http://www.allthingsdistributed.com/2006/11/working_backward...

[2] https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/vpblogimg/2015/04/Aws-Sum...
How does that control the cost of housing?

I'm assuming that one would go to a land trust, sign a contract to rent a lot for $X/month for 99 years (or something similar).

Then you would build a house, probably get a construction mortgage to afford it. Then your monthly payments would be mortgage + $X.

Area becomes wildly attractive and people move in. Suddenly people are offering mortgage * 200% for your house, knowing they'll add $X to their money payment.

Housing still gets expensive. What am I missing?
"Moreover, people you invite to projects must be Gmail or Google App users which are secure by default and usually already set up."

Uhh...no. Why would anyone assume some random Gmail account is secure by default?
CERN confirms: Hints of hypothetical particle have disappeared
They didn't build SFU - the first thing called that was a rebranded MKS toolkit, from Mortice Kern Systems (later, I think, bought by somebody else). The second thing called named SFU was a different POSIX layer built by some company I can't remember the name of.

Remembering having to use it (the MKS version) to port some Solaris software, I recall my team mates having an alternate expansion for the acronym that isn't that hard to guess.
I doubt the workflow could be any more complex than what you have seen. In many ways, it should be less so. There are some nuances, however. Partly the problem is the extreme egos involved in many business negotiations. Every communication sent has to help the sender to look good. There has to be a bias against publicizing changes before the author is done. There also has to be flexibility to override approvals. A lot of big deals would never close if someone had to take personal responsibility for waiving closing conditions that aren't satisfied at closing.
| Note that outbash.exe listens on 127.0.0.1, but validates that processes that establish a connection are running as the same user as outbash.exe (this check is implemented starting with version v0.7). Therefore, it can be used on multi-user computers.

(from: https://github.com/xilun/cbwin/ )

So, I suspect this uses TCP & networking to do that; which does work: you can listen to a port in LXSS, and that will be accessible via 127.0.0.1 ;and you can connect to 127.0.0.1 from LXSS, and it will be routed to eg. windows listeners . Above was specifically about process-based signals, and non-network-hacks.
Show HN: Websites for Trello open-sourced
I'm in the same boat... prepping a handful of .Net apps to run under docker (dokku) and migrating from Azure host to DO... though I may well continue to use Azure's storage services, and Azure SQL... the pricing is a bit better than the alternatives.
It's both. More traffic is better for anonymization but it also consumes finite resources.

The solution of course being for more people to run relays.
I would also be willing the bet that the build/ops team wrote their puppet scripts to mirror the current way that the application was configured and deployed (shittily).

To really make configuration management work, you need to need to have sane process and architecture in place. Otherwise, you're just adding a layer of abstraction with a little automation sprinkled in, to an already shitty situation.

When configuration is done correctly, with an application that has solid architecture and configuration methodologies, configuration management can be incredibly beautiful. I've seen it done well, and it can be light yrs ahead of what basic bash or powershell scripting can do for you.
It's on npm, too, if that's a better option for you. https://www.npmjs.com/package/jquerypp
The First Tour de France was organized out of spite and to boost magazine sales
"How do I know you'll employ me beyond 2-3 years and won't go under?
You're going to fucking hate what the English call canola oil.
Vandium – a security tool for serverless functions
Hmm, there are a variety of inaccuracies in your short statement. Please carefully read the below so that you can be protected from propagating these errors in the future.

· SCO Unix, although it incorporated some Xenix code, was very different from Xenix; it derived a lot from SVR4.

· SCO basically went out of business, because their value proposition was "Unix, but on a regular PC so you don't have to buy an expensive RISC workstation." This stopped being a useful value proposition around 1997 because they couldn't keep up with Linux. So they sold the SCO Unix product line to Caldera, a Linux distributor, in 2001. I'm not 100% sure but I don't think any employees moved from SCO in Santa Cruz, California, to Caldera, which was in Utah. Maybe someone stuck around to smooth the transition?

· Microsoft's backing of SCO was direct; they "bought a license" in 2003. Maybe they also did some indirect backing that I don't know about.

· Caldera basically failed in the Linux distribution space in 2002, and the investors booted out CEO Ransom Love and replaced him with Darl McBride, formerly of Novell, IKON, a couple of startups, and Franklin Covey (!).

· The copyright infringement lawsuits weren't based on Xenix. Nobody claimed Linux had copied from Xenix. Rather, they were based on Bell Labs Unix, from the 1970s, and AT&T Unix System Labs System V Unix. SCO had supposedly acquired the copyrights to these sometime in the 1990s, and in fact them giving permission is how the Lions book was legally republished in 1996 or 1997, but it turned out that in fact what they had acquired was not the copyright ownership, but a sublicenseable license to the copyright. The actual copyright rested with some company Novell had bought up at some point, so the lawsuit got thrown out of court.

· The SCO Group sued not only Linux vendors, notably IBM, but also Linux users, notably AutoZone and DaimlerChrysler. This is an error of omission, but it's crucially important.
Uber riders willing to pay up to 9.9x in surge pricing if phone battery's low
“We know Google is intentionally hiding ProtonMail from search results”
Does this impact Synology's Hybrid RAID running on Btrfs? Btrfs is nowadays the default fs on Synology boxes.
Would really love to hear what makes Azure "largely better". My own experience is far from that. I have yet to meet anyone not relying heavily on moving over a MS stack or that has gone beyond the "hit a template to deploy a test" use case that really likes it. When I get folks down to the brass tacks, it tends to boil down to "I don't have to pay the overhead of the Windows license anymore" or "I like having MS services as a PaaS".

On the other hand there are a lot of inconsistencies and odd limitations on the services.
There's a couple really good reasons why they can't do that, trademark, PR and user trust.

They need to defend their trademark, or it will be genericized. Not that that's a big deal, but it can be a thing.

More importantly, if the windows store is filled with crappy snapchat apps, it hurts their brand. If they release an update that breaks those apps, it hurts their brand. It's a no-win situation. Then there's hacks of third party apps, that are spun as being Snapchat's problem: http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/01/tech/social-media/snapchat-hac...

Snapchat is in a particularly bad position for the last bit, because what they're selling is fundamentally a lie, and having that lie exposed hurt them a lot.
Putting a little TL;DR up here on top, because I'd really like to see folks' answers to this:
What's the simple-language equivalent of, "You're so smart," or "That was so smart," but for intellectual effort?

Now, regularly scheduled thoughts :) :

What is a good, short method/word for praising effort?

with my 8.5-month old, "Good Job," specific variants on it ("Good Job climbing that staircase, tiny!") and such have worked wonderfully, but I seek something more-

It's so easy to praise a child's intelligence - "You're so smart!" "That's so clever!" - but much harder to praise effort, in my experience so far, because "I can tell you worked so hard to do that, that's so great!" just doesn't roll off the tongue very well! And this is important- "Good job!" is at the nexus of how I praise my little boy partially because he totally understand it. He's got that, even if he may not know the individual words exactly, he absolutely knows what Daddy means when, "Good job, baby!" comes out of daddy's mouth. I have VERY LOW FAITH that I could get, "I can tell you worked so hard to do that, that's so great!" to work the same!

(Incidentally, I also now feel I know more about why, in America at least, we often say, "I'm doing good," and variants thereof, instead of "I'm doing well." "Well" just isn't in the primal vocabulary quite as deeply, maybe because of its association with "Well, I was going to, but then I didn't," type of statements. "Good" is simple and meaningful, and I often find myself telling my son he's done something so "good," and then correcting myself a little, because, well, I want to teach him correct grammar, but more than that, I want to communicate with him meaningfully - and "good" gets a meaning across with which he's already familiar, while "well" does not, and has other common uses.)

So what's the simple-language equivalent of, "You're so smart," or "That was so smart," but for intellectual effort?

Maybe I need to invent a word for this and see if it catches on! :D
Your algorithm would take literally any form of discrimination that had been applied to a student so far in their lives as a signal to discriminate against them even further. It wouldn't look at the reasons a student's grades were low and consider whether it was their "merits".
Latest to Quit Google’s Self-Driving Car Unit: Top Roboticist
Also, that screenshot is from a long, long time ago.
If you're a security newb like me but you are using Qubes, update your dom0 software and this vulnerability is fixed. run:

sudo qubes-dom0-update

The exploit itself allows an attacker who gains control of one domain (like your untrusted cat video domain) to execute scripts in any domain.
Anyone know if it's possible to somehow port the linux subsystem to windows 7 and 8?
Bloom filters are cool , but the writer is pretty annoying. It's written like they discovered bloom filters or something.

Just read the last section.
That sounds really oppressive. Perhaps instead of moving, just tell people no thanks, f off, or mind your own business.

And who are these people constantly saying they'll pray for them? A trans person walks into a store and people just start annoying them?
> I do appreciate your response, and trust that I'm smiling when I write this without any contempt: when do I get to give up?

And, likewise, I hope you do not feel any contempt from me. When do you get to give up? I do not mean this in a disrespectful way ... I would ask God.

> Maybe it's $DEITY's turn to pick some of the slack. :-)

I just prayed that you will sense His love for you (and maybe even interpret that as picking up some of the slack).

> From my wall of text, one might conclude that I did, indeed, give it a fair and sincere shot.

I, for one, do not fault you for lack of trying. I am just saying don't give up now ... breakthrough could be around the corner. That is what I have prayed for you.

> And I came to a different conclusion that you appear to have. No worries, I'm fine with that, we all make our own journey. I've enjoyed mine, and ...

Ultimately, we all have to choose which path to follow. I respect you for at least giving it serious thought and consideration.

> I hope you enjoy yours.

Overall, yes, but following Jesus Christ does not necessarily make life easier. It certainly isn't boring, though! :)
I have my own theory.

We sleep because that's when we are logged out of the virtual game that this world is.

I'm only semi-serious.

But let's work with it. What if we research sleep right until there is nothing left to find out, and we since can't figure out any reason at all for it?

Could we use that to postulate for a reason that is non-physical? Spiritual? Virtual reality? Something else?
The View from the Front Seat of the Google Self-Driving Car: A New Chapter
I'm surprised you're not running the docker instance, it's literally "run this and it will work" in fact, most of their instructions are rather on the nose.
PaulKeeble appears to be making the weaker argument "the bible have been proved scientifically wrong", not the stronger claim of "truly disproved the Bible". If you agree with Gould "two non-overlapping magisteria" argument, then the Bible cannot be "truly disproved" because it covers topics that cannot be examined or disproved by science. Only the parts which overlap with science can be proved or disproved by science.

I'll give an example where the scientific facts as described in the Bible do not appear to be reconcilable with historical or archeological evidence: the Exodus story. Quoting from http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Contributors/The-Exodus-D... :

> So that makes archaeologists reluctant to have to tell our brethren and ourselves that there is nothing in Egyptian records to support it. Nothing on the slavery of the Israelites, nothing on the plagues that persuaded Pharaoh to let them go, nothing on the miraculous crossing of the Red Sea, nothing.

> Nothing at all. There are three Pharaohs who said they got rid of the hated foreigners, but nothing to say who the foreigners were, and no Pharaoh is named as having persecuted foreign slaves or suffered unspeakable plagues.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the_Exodus summarizes more of the historical and archeological details. While that can be perceived as having a built-in bias against the Bible, it proves to be hard to find other sources which are not merely hand-waving apologetics pages.
I grew up in a large urban area, Miami, and this did in fact happen a couple times. There was a crime committed in the surrounding homes and police came to our door to see if we had any information that could help them.

An attorney is going to tell you what's 100% in your legal interests, since that's their duty. There's always a chance that you say something that incriminates you or reveals that you committed some other crime or similar.

But that's not the only consideration. There's also concern for the well-being of your community, a desire to make it safe for your children, etc. Acting on those interests can supersede the tiny risk that a law abiding citizen takes when speaking to law enforcement.
Agree, and will further expound.

There are some obvious exceptions on the cutting edge of technology (VR etc) but developers in my position care more about reliably making reliable software that earns (or saves) money. To this end, it's usually better to apply techniques and technologies that are already somewhat mature. I think this is more typical.

This doesn't mean I'm stuck on Java 2, but it means I don't read the papers on Paxos and Dynamo and such (instead I read the Hacker News article on the release of Apache Cassandra and build distributed software on top of relatively-early beta versions - and occasionally the business deals with costs from migrating from Thrift to CQL but the risk was worth it).
My understanding is that the passphrase is the key to your private key, as well as the api login for keybase.io, and that it's never sent to the server.

Now, one may question the encryption method(s) on the API and the private key stored encrypted on keybase, I also believe you don't have to upload your private key. That said, part of the advantage of keybase is the ability to access it from "anywhere". In this case ease of use is more paramount. Also, being able to regularly validate an email address would be nice as well, I think there's been progress on this. Also, that one should be able to easily integrate with email applications for more transparent key lookups for encryption... now, there may be issues of mitm at one's email service (if web integration), but getting people to use encrypted messaging has always been the harder part of adoption, which keybase is a part of.
I don't believe it would drive adoption at all. Microsoft know Windows Phone today is dead. However they still have the desktop and with UWP they hope to bridge the development gap between mobile/tablet/desktop/laptop.

Had they shipped Astoria in Windows 10 to allow Android apps to "just work" it would have destroyed their UWP strategy.

So they might get a few more Windows Phone users but they would have lost control of the new development platform and given it to Google on a silver platter. And they would never have got anywhere near the numbers Android is at.

I would be shocked if Microsoft don't bring UWP to macOS, Linux and Android (I don't see how they can with iOS) in the not-too-distant-future.
Readability matters. Specifying the namespace of `list` communicates one and only one idea: I am referring to a particular binding of `list`. By leaving out the namespace qualifier when you shadow a symbol you can only add to the cognitive load necessary to understand the meaning of the code. A languages' only purpose to communicate meaning, whether that be to a machine or a person.

> if I read your example in CL, I am starting to ask myself
> if I am in a package where you defined a "list" function

Anytime you use a shadowed symbol, qualify it with a namespace. Just because you can do something does not mean you should. It won't hurt the code and it makes the meaning perfectly clear.
I hit two bugs today. Both were produced during major global refactoring. I did not have time to catalogue the reproduction steps or anything, so I have no right to complain!

1. https://issues.scala-lang.org/browse/SI-9281

2. https://issues.scala-lang.org/browse/SI-8322
That makes sense. I was indeed doing some hovering and dithering over tents.

What I found curious however, is the fact that I have never ordered anything from REI on my phone, nor logged on to any REI website (no cart, no account). All REI purchases go through my wife's account for the dividend.

How does casual browsing connect with an email address, excepting the Google search?

Sometimes I wonder if the Web has already passed some basic level of sentience.

You guys will let me know when that happens, right?