skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
That depends on the person defining it. Why can't it be the outcome my brain has determined for me to take which I subjectively understand as a self-chosen action? That may well depend on my history--my emotions, memories and all the things that shape me--but those are more reasons than constraints.

Isn't that like saying I want to fly, so I don't have free will if I can't?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12258501
Building a Binary Search Tree in Go
It's a legal requirement in some places, and they'll lose users otherwise.
Indeed. My first law of bicycles is: "Good bikes aren't cheap." Unfortunately, BSOs do a big disservice to cycling in general - bad experiences discourage potential riders.

I'm a long time recumbent rider, and people accustomed to BSOs tend to blanch at the price of a recumbent, even when it isn't out of line with what a good bike generally costs, and even when they'd happily spend that much or more on a bag of golf clubs.
It's not that cheap bad bikes drove out expensive good bikes, but tha bad bikes at all price levels drove out good bikes at all price levels.

There are hallmarks of bike appeal (say, fat tires, or suspension), which will attract buyers. If those features are poorly engineered and manufactured, they lower the overall value of the bike. It's a worse bike for having them.

It's much as embellishment of virtually any product occurs with time, but most especially functional systems, which negate the actual useful appeal. The functional parts are reduced to minimum viable cost (and quality).

Put another way, the situation is of a high-reward environment (lots of dumb money flowing), rewarding variation, but with a really bad selection criterion. It's essentially disevolution at work -- the goal is to suck up as much money as possible, regardless of technical quality, and it works because technical quality is hard to assess for.
Doesn't scientology have some kind of weird self-declared feud with psychiatry? I wonder if they've perhaps been sowing FUD whenever and wherever possible.
That approach requires a lot of post processing to make it useful. Further it's pretty hard (near impossible) to do causal ordering.
Or Mazda's i-ELOOP?
I haven't hooked up to gmail, yet. I can't imagine it is harder than hooking up to exchange, though. For that GNUS really hasn't been that bad. I quite enjoy it.
Or the two teaming up, at the very least.
Your definition of cruft is rather strange. Yes, Rust code can be kind of complicated and messy-looking, but it makes sense when you think about it. All the parts justify their existence. IMO, cruft is stuff that doesn't make sense or is extraneous; incidental rather than essential complexity, in general.
Generic traits can be implemented multiple times, as long as the params differ. This is generally used to establish relationships between types, which can naturally be M:N. Comparison and conversion are standard use cases:

impl PartialOrd<OsString> for OsString
impl PartialOrd<str> for OsString
impl PartialOrd<OsStr> for OsString
impl PartialOrd<Cow<OsStr>> for OsString

Traits without generics can only be implemented once (because there's no generic params to "differentiate" impls). But it's often still desirable/necessary to relate types to the implementation. This is much more common, as it's generally a case that some type is a ThingDoer in only one way (and having it be a ThingDoer in more than one way may be confusing).

Associated types are often more convenient and give the compiler more room to reason about your code.
Could you elaborate ?
This article is seriously confused. Current BEVs use 400+ Volts for the motive power, but still have 12V for accessories due to the established market.

Increasing to 24V or 48V means less current for the same load, which means smaller cables for accessory power. Above 30V or so you get into "high voltage" by electrical safety standards.

A 48V electrical system is not going to be driving hybrid vehicles, it is purely to reduce the cost of wiring looms.
https://github.com/ben174/git-draw
How would passing on the container ID help in mapping multiple log messages to the same request? If a request is going through multiple containers, you'll get multiple container IDs.

To solve this problem, you need a unique trace ID and vector clock, and this actually needs to propagated through your logging system, not through container tags.
Found the paper:

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/352/6290/1210

Found a nice quote in the LA Times coverage:

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-bionic-l...

“Stay tuned because Pam and I are on a path to do nitrogen fixation in the same sort of way we’ve just done water splitting,” [Nocera said]
The+White+House+now+accepts+Letters+on+Facebook
I am just trying to wrap my head around the use case for AMP.

On one hand, you have a faster loading site/page which is good for users and helps with SEO ranking, but as a developer, you lose some flexibility in terms of specifying your layout for multiple cases.

I guess if the majority of your traffic is mobile-based in areas with typically slower internet connections, then it makes more sense to utilize something like AMP. But if that is not the case, it seems like you have to do twice the work for not much gain...
It’s just the beginning
Go look at a graph of income inequality over the last 30 years. Reflect on the fact that 30 years ago Detroit was a bustling industrial hub. Contemplate the fact that we have more people in jail in this country than any other country in the world. Child poverty & homelessness are at near-historic levels and rising. Critical environmental regulations are being dismantled at the state and federal levels and we have politicians openly discussing further deregulation of industry. So when you say millions of people are benefitting you'll excuse me if I ask you to define what that means. Incidentally, why do you assume real political reform (or even revolution) requires blowing a bunch of people up?
Lab Spitta – #TheFreeTape Vol. 1
http://www.independent.com/news/2011/nov/03/dead-dogs-dancin...

"And then there’s Michael Huffington, the Texas tycoon who moved to Santa Barbara in the early ’90s so he could run for Congress. Huffington ingratiated himself with S.B. movers and shakers by writing $10,000 checks to all their favorite charities. But he and his famous wife, Arianna, who has since morphed into a famous left-wing media mogulista, were so late paying their bills that many of Santa Barbara’s high-end foodie establishments cut off credit to the high-octane couple. As he would later — when news stories broke that he’d hired an illegal immigrant to care for his children — Huffington blamed his wife."
you can do even better with http2. on a request to get a page the server can just optimistically send the image headers to the client up front with the page text then backfill the image bodies in whatever order the client wants
Would flipping a coin count?

If you respond, "No, because the particles that make up the coin and the muscles that drive my thumbnail have a history that determines the outcome," then how about a slight variation? "I can't decide what to do. I have no idea what time it is, so if the minute digit on my clock is odd, I'll do X, otherwise I'll do Y."

Here I've explicitly refrained from using either a source of randomness or anything else with its own history to determine my fate. The decision to consult the clock might have been an act of free will on my part, but the outcome certainly wasn't.
BMW i3 REX as well.
Free Software Foundation Releases FY2015 Annual Report
How the Mighty [HP Enterprise Acquires SGI]
Patrick Gray blows the lid on set of blunders behind Australia’s failed census
I must admit that I find the idea of owning a R22 or R44 quite attractive. Too bad the wallet is not cooperative.
> This isn't "functional"; these functions have major side effects

uh, no, I've rarely seen adaptors like and_then being used with side effects (folks use regular loops if they want that). Rust doesn't have a strict notion of purity, but that doesn't mean that most rust code isn't pure.

There's nothing wrong with having lots of adaptors scattered around the code, either. It's not less readable, it's just different.

> There are endless ways of doing so." I'd rather have "there's only one way to do it", as in Python

Uh, "there are endless ways of combining future adaptors", not "there are endless ways of solving a problem". Each combination of adaptors solves a different problem (mostly).

> That usually leads to code that's hard to read and debug

This is async code. This has always been hard to read and debug. Futures make the control flow more explicit, if anything (especially if you have async and await), because the flow is now in one place, at least. Grokking manual event loop code is much more annoying.

Sure, the async argument doesn't apply to regular iterators and Option. However, these "object specific functions" are not object specific. All futures have the same adaptors. All iterators have the same adaptors. The only special objects with their own set of such methods are Result and Option. These share the names of the methods, and these are used often enough to justify it. There aren't that many of them either, so this really isn't that big a deal. You just need to know what each of this small number of methods does. It only hides control flow if you're not aware of these methods, which is a state of mind that goes away quickly after the first few rust programs.

Besides, because of the closures it's pretty obvious that some tweaking of control flow is happening, so it isn't hidden. You can check the docs for that function to know exactly what the tweaking is.

I also don't know what you mean by "traditional code", this pattern is exceedingly common in languages which aren't C or C++.
It's my understanding that the alternative green thread runtime used stack swapping.

What I'm referring to here is the same futures method under the hood but transparent to the user.

It's also my understanding that there were unrelated engineering constraints that caused it to be unwieldy, such as binary size. I believe it's possible to provide an alternative runtime without it necessarily affecting the main configuration or limited environments like embedded devices.
Your comment reminded me of Cuba's car situation - all they have the option to do is continue to rebuild/repair existing cars.
I'm of the opinion that user interfaces should not be patentable, specifically so that when people find safer interfaces everyone else can copy them and standardize on them, rather than trying to carefully avoid them.
Given the rarity of such expert in any/all field, I'd dare say it's more like nature instead of nurture.

The best we can nurture is 'good' analogy, that still somewhat valid even if the analogy is expanded further

p/s: If only we have a list of Feynman-like experts in most of the fields :D
Constant influx of 100k recent grads and an efflux of others who didn't hit the equity lottery to afford at a minimum a down payment..
Semiconductors care a lot. There is a sweet spot in the <= 48V range, and even more in the <= 24V range. High voltage devices are much harder to miniaturize, and the conversion ratios for the inevitable logic supplies can be done a lot cheaper at lower voltages.

Safety is of course a huge component. 48V is about the limit before special isolation and insulation is required.
This isn't true. HFTs are very active and profitable in markets where there are no rebates (some US stock exchanges and most dark pools, futures markets, most overseas exchanges). Even in markets where you have no fragmentation at all, you'll find HFT. The rebate just gets baked into how wide of a market you provide or how eager you are to pay the spread.

The main reason Reg NMS and Reg ATS drove a proliferation of HFT was breaking the NYSE specialist's monopoly on liquidity provision. Even before that companies like Tradebot where very active in Nasdaq stocks on various ECNs. Automated trading is simply cheaper and it drove manual market-makers out of business.
Yann LeCun's recommendations for self-studying machine learning
Currying – Contrasted with Partial Function Application
AngelList brings syndicates to India
Oh yeah, I forgot about server-driven preloading. There's some great stuff in HTTP2, thanks for pointing it out!
The best thing about this article is that it is short, a rare feat in today's world. So I don't want to scrutinize it too hard on its mere two examples:

It says, like Google's Accelerated Mobile Pages (AMP) project, HTML should (1) require each img tag have the height and width specified, and (2) allow only the CSS filters that can be GPU-accelerated.

These are nice and all, but the problem is this. Why stop there? Why not forbid illegible fonts, text columns that are too wide or too narrow, green text on a red background, and assortment of other "poor UX"? Why not enforce that no page exceed the byte length of a Russian novel? (Now that's a law I can get behind [http://idlewords.com/talks/website_obesity.htm].)

HTML could be better, but like all open-source projects, I'm amazed how good it is, and even more so how much better it is than any alternative offered for money.
> Shadows and subtle color reflections are a major part of that "layered paper" aesthetic.

They're a part of design language, raw elements of design. This can get much bigger than the Material Design of now. It can make sure that the subtle or even zany, domineering design of tomorrow has just the right level of refinement for its intended audience.

IMO as a graphic designer and as someone who has been doing 3D rendering as a hobby for 15 years, it's pretty awesome to think about PBR moving into the area of UI.
In another comment, you said:

> I'm not suggesting anything supernatural. I'm suggesting that there's possibly physical phenomenon that do not fit our current materialist model.

Absolutely. Sure, there are of course physical phenomenon that do not fit our current materialist model.

Let's say we discover those additional phenomenon. Ultimately, we'd want to build a machine to model that phenomenon. Perhaps encode a model of that phenomenon in software. Once that happens, scribbling numbers on a piece of paper indeed could give rise to a conscious being.

If it's some system that can't be covered by scientific understanding, isn't that what supernatural means? It's either some internally consistent (but possibly very complicated) set of rules, or it's supernatural.
Yes, that's rather the point: we're talking about highly-multicore server machines (e.g. 16/32 cores, or perhaps far more) entirely dedicated to running your extremely-concurrent application. You want all but one or two of those cores just running the app and nothing else. You leave one or two cores for the "control plane" or "supervisor"—the OS—to schedule all the rest of its tasks on.

It's a lot like a machine running a hypervisor with a single VM on it set to consume 100% of available resources—but actually slightly more efficient than that, since a guest can intelligently pin allocate cores to itself and pin its scheduler-threads to them and then just stop thinking about the pinning, while a hypervisor-host is stuck constantly thinking about whether its vCPUs-to-pCPU mapping is currently optimal, with what's basically a black box consuming those vCPUs.
Dang, that gave me flashbacks to "A Deepness in the Sky".
This raises any number of points and questions.

How effectively can we communicate (and pass on to new generations) complex ideas at all? There's an essay on mathematics PhDs, noting that in any given seminar of a half-dozen or so people, you may well have the only six people in the world who can even understand the topic in the room. What does it mean to "know" something if only one billionth of the global population can even grasp it?

There's the question of how to assess the quality of knowledge within a field. How can laypeople, inlcuding the politicians, voters, and taxpayers who ultimately pay for research, education, and otherwise support many of these operations, even assess what it is they're paying for and receiving?

There's the matter of media quality and access. I make absolutely no bones that I'm a book thief, and praise Alexandra Elbakyan daily (along with Kale Brewster of the Internet Archive, Reddit's /r/scholar and BookZZ.org) for providing access to the raw materials of my own research. (Also various libraries, though they're far less convenient or accessible.) Information is a public good. It has massive positive externalities, it's nonrivalrous, and it needs to be disseminated and accessible in order to be useful. And yet we lock it away. Which is among the reasons why autodidacts rely on such poor alternatives as the popular press.

Blaming journalists for poor descriptions of scientific concepts doesn't fly when it's scientists themselves who are kicking out these concepts. OK, to paraphrase other unfortunate social slogans, not all scientists. But many. And yes, reporters and editors should absolutely be called to task for sloppy writing and whitewashing crud.

(Ah. I'm remembering a panel, Christopher Hitchens was among the presenters, where a female writer mentioned her experience writing for a fashion magazine on social topics -- the original work was hers, but after it had been washed through many more hands, it was anything but. I think in here: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fkLX58ZWbWw Sorry, that's a 2 hour video, I'll see if I can't narrow down the timeframe. Probably Katha Pollitt. The relevant comments concern writing for Glamour, and occur at 14m30s.)

And finally, as I've raised the issue with @schoen below, there's the question of how best to filter out the sensible cranks from the nuts. Finding good new ideas amongst the many bad ones, and sorting out how to keep from having to relitigate bullshit, is a Very Hard Problem.
I've just started down a path for us and been pretty happy with Loggly so far.

Just by adding a UUID to the requests as they're initially received I'm able to follow the chain of events across 5 different services, a message queue, and reconcile with any code exception reports from Bugsnag.

We don't have a lot of unique clients, but we do have a lot of requests.

Loggly can be set to parse logs (or have the data sent directly to it) and then tag messages with keys/values that can let you watch your request through every server.
For FSM's sake, is there anything that somebody around here won't refer to as "clickbait"? HN should implement an auto-filter to reject any comment containing the term.
How would you adjust the marketing for Linux (the kernel, not the various distros that use it)?
Miller 4.4.0: Redirected output, row-value shift, and other features
Even the opening sentences are wrong:

> VOLTAGE is to electricity what pressure is to water: the more you have of it the more oomph you get. That is why electrical power lines work at high voltage.

No. Losses in transmission lines are proportional to current squared [1]. High voltage is used because it results in lower current (for the same power), so lower losses.

[1] http://www.bsharp.org/physics/transmission
They have over 100 million MAUs so even 1000 UTF-8 characters for each each active user (email, first name, last name, location, tokens, other stuff) would be up to 0.4 TB. Then add all the inactive users, and pins, tags, friend connections, and all the other data they'll process for recommendations/discovery.
Trunk full of rackmount telcom gear for IoT, duh.

There actually is an existing sweet spot for 60V FETs, optimized for traditional 48v power systems. I've got to wonder if they're going to use -48v to allow simple driving of N FETs, or if the ubiquity of modern high-side drivers has made that a moot point.
Point and click adventure games seem like a good example - the mechanics for these are usually a pretty small part of what makes them fun. Awesome and polished art, sound, plot etc. are what matter.
> Psychiatry programs attract medical students with lower board scores and fewer academic honors on average compared to other specialties.

It sounds like a self-reinforcing problem. Psychiatry's bad reputation leads to it having less qualified practitioners, thereby justifying the poor reputation.

I personally do not place much value in the field. It seems to monopolize on creating problems where none existed, and thereby increasing profits. In particular, the fact that most treatments seem to be lifetime is suspicious.
That's still pretty dumb. Sometimes you have to signal to ask for a place to merge, and it takes a while before someone lets you over.
You could retrain at 65 or simply continue learning as you age. We simply don't do that because people know they will retire and die, or otherwise lose the quick wit of youth.
PocketSuite (YC W16) Hiring Mobile UX / Visual Designer
No, it could be that the universe actually cannot be modeled computationally, that it exceeds the constraints of a Turing machine. This is an open question.
That's like saying that falling off a building can't kill you (because it's actually the stop that does).

You lower the current by lowering the voltage.
How often do you cure your patients?

I'm skeptical of any medical profession which seems to build and depend on lifetime customers.
Notice: Crawling Facebook is prohibited unless you have written permission
Eye lens radiocarbon reveals centuries of longevity in the Greenland shark
But Quasar does seem to offer go-like channels? I'm unclear what kind of combinators are provided but those could be implemented.
> OpenSSL's crypto code isn't all that bad as long as you're not worried about side channel attacks.

I consider "horrible API that makes it basically impossible to write safe code" to be a security vulnerability. Not to mention that OpenSSL's example code actually had security vulnerabilities (they didn't check the return value from one of the IV routines, whish means that you could end up using a shorter key than you expected).
And safer.
No program beyond the most trivial will meet these requirements. The moment you call any function indirectly you lose.
HFT is mostly doing the same thing that banks, prop traders, specialists, or hedge funds were doing manually in the past. They risk their own capital to transfer liquidity across time (market-making), place (cross-market arbitrage) and product (trading on statistical correlations). That activity is valuable because it provides liquidity, the ability to buy or sell at a relatively fair price, where it is needed most and enforces structure on the market to keep it efficient.

The speed race between participants is probably not valuable, but it's the least bad form of market structure that exists. Somebody will do these trades, and everybody wants to, so you need some way to pick winners and losers. Having whoever sets the best price fastest win is less prone to gaming than other structures and rewards competition that drives down inefficiency (you have to do every marginally profitable trade because someone else will snatch it up before it turns into a really great one).

If you could put all the top HFT players in a smoky room where they agreed not to buy new faster microwave lines or high-speed switches, they'd certainly agree to. They're already faster than humans and most banks. They win on that front no matter what. All of this speed competition just changes their rank ordering amongst their peers and costs a lot of money.
well i was mainly commenting on the comment that he's an "amazing speaker". that has a pretty strong connotation. haha.
Wait, how are they getting a gas of muonic deuterium to begin with? Muons have a really short half-life. Can they generate muons, combine them with deuterons, and lase them before the muons decay?
Ah, I completely misunderstood. Yes, you are right: Threading data together across multiple containers belonging to a single logical request is hard (and AFAIK, none of the container orchestration tools deal with it well).