skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I loved this article. I never knew about Userland Frontier Kernel and enjoyed looking it up. I also enjoyed other bits of history sprinkled in the article especially about Macintosh switching from Pascal to C and about what it was like to use the Ada and Pascal compilers.

The author's central argument is "don't give up on a language that's hard because it might have significant, practical advantages." In particular, he argues that Ada might be superior to C because C suffers from segfaults or other memory-related issues that Ada does not suffer from. Because C was initially easier to write, he went with it.

I think this principle — that it is worth sticking with a language despite difficulty in writing it — is flawed. While Ada was both difficult and resolved memory issues, languages like Python graceful avoid memory issues without being difficult to write.

Naturally, language safety is greater than ensuring memory integrity. Haskell ensures memory integrity and type safety and happens to be a hard language. I think that Haskell is a stepping stone. That in the future, languages will be safer, but also easier to write. That we haven't solved this paradox — that a language can be both safe and easy to use — is merely a matter of time. For now, I'll keep writing Python.
CBT can treat severe depression, but the problem is that all those deep-seated underlying mental patterns don't just change because you want them too.

Most people don't seem to realise that the celebrated prefrontal cortex is the youngest and in a way weakest part of the brain. It surrounds older structures that don't work much different than in reptiles.

Changing your thoughts is easy, changing the attached emotions, fight/flight responses etc., who might even trigger the thoughts in the first place is incredibly hard.

It takes time, the right corrective and endless patience and iterative practise.
Id recommend reading this: http://lesswrong.com/lw/rb/possibility_and_couldness/

Intelligent agents do make choices and it's a useful abstraction to think of the world that way. A chess playing program may be deterministic and make the same move Everytime. But it still picks the move it thinks is best, out of all the possibilities. If it thought another move was better, if would have chosen that. And so it does have control, it does make choices , in some sense.
>Nobody in this thread (at time of writing) seems to have the slightest idea about what CBT is.

Or that it has several meanings in internet lingo, not all savoury.
Sendence. We are a start up in the high speed data analytics space. We have an emphasis on going as fast as possible while remaining accurate.
> That's not true for Java. Its generational garbage collector performs bump allocation in the nursery, yielding tightly packed objects with excellent cache behavior. Allocation in HotSpot is like 3-5 instructions (really!)

When I see this link I get different impression.

http://mechanical-sympathy.blogspot.com/2012/10/compact-off-...

It is only heavy use of sun.misc.Unsafe and unidiomatic coding style that give Java semblance of memory efficiency.
Recently I've found myself having severe problems with seeing clear borders between many concepts. IF expressions, type-based dispatching, matching, generic functions, predicate dispatching...a lot of it basically boils down to the same thing, only expressed in different ways. The problem is that the same thing goes for type systems in my head. Types define sets of values, but if your language hardcodes what kinds of sets of values you can express, chances are that you'll have to express whatever residual distinction between values there is (that you can't encode into the value type) into one of the above-mentioned decision-making processes, and at that point, they go sort of out of sight of the typing/proving machinery.

I'd rather avoid someone forcing me into using a hardcoded type system, among other reasons because I'm contemplating a (perhaps novel?) search-based program/expression-manipulating system that wouldn't play well with any fixed typing system. For one thing, the types of expression results (being return values of operators applied to input expressions or programs) can easily be emergent (is the resulting expression linear? Is it an odd function? Is it analytically integrable? Etc.) and not easily arrived at in something ML-like. If I had to use something like Haskell, I'd still be rolling out my own type system/prover on top of the existing language implementation anyway. However, types in general (as something you can compute with in the meta-program) would be absolutely mandatory for a system like this (for example, some algorithms or operations can have more desirable refinements that work only on subsets of values - consider determinants of triangular matrices, with triangular matrices being an emergent type - and I absolutely want to find out if such a thing is available for the specific problem being transformed), just not types that any specific existing language offers, to my knowledge.

So it's not that I dismiss the notion of proving things about programs - that is a vital thing to have - but the ability to impose restrictions on a program from the outside seems much more flexible to me than going for some fixed type discipline that could force me to straddle inconvenient fixed walls in the structure of a complicated program (such as this transformation system that would search the tree of possible transformations for a result with some desirable properties, with the transformations concisely expressed in some very-high-level DSL source code).
Isn't not dying AND not being in debt an even less worse option?
Don't know what it's doing here, but Waylon was a legend and he's one of the few music celebs I miss. When I was younger I spent many many hours listening to Ramblin' Man etc.
Autonomous self-driving cars are hopefully going to cause the price of LIDAR sensors to go down. Once they get super cheap, sure, load up 10 or 20 LIDAR sensors on anything with wheels.
The Incredible Complications of Living Atop the U.S.-Canada Border
>>Again I ask, have we considered that maybe those poor people that you're referring to, know what is in their "best interests" better than we do.

I have considered that notion for a long time, but ultimately dismissed it as pure nonsense. The fact of the matter is that people can be tricked and be taken advantage of. It is not condescending to point that out when it happens.

If someone gets conned into transferring all the money in their bank account to a stranger in Nigeria on the belief that it will "free up" millions that will be theirs, you cannot possibly make the argument that pointing out they got conned is condescending, that maybe that person knew what was actually in their best interest. They thought they knew, but they were, frankly, wrong.

The exact same thing happens with many poor people in our society: they get conned into voting for politicians who will absolutely screw them over. Furthermore, it doesn't happen once or twice. It happens repeatedly. And again, pointing this out is not condescending. It's just the truth.
Well, many of the assumptions underlying your conscious thoughts are unconscious. CBT does go into those assumptions.
I've had a severe double down depression for most of my life. It started at around 10~11, after my father died and it peaked at 26 where I could not get out of bed without extreme amounts of stress or sleep deprivation. This ruined relationships, friendships and left me with practically all of my teenage years and most of my twenties lost to self-hatred and self-denial.

Medication was the life preserver for me when I finally got myself to accept that I would never be able to deal with this alone. Medication gave my brain some well deserved rest, let me take stock from a more balanced point of view.

CBT was my ladder to climb out of hell. Without CBT I would be still where I was those years ago, just less affected by it. Sitting in a room that was on fire, but just not caring about it that much, that's still a shitty place to be in.

The important thing about CBT was for me that it gave me tools to work with. A chisel for my mind so to speak. It is not at all about talking oneself into happiness, for me it was about NOT talking oneself into sadness. About giving me the logical framework to force myself to see good things where they were, instead of focusing on the bad things. It gave me ways to correctly differentiate between tackling bad situations and just glooming about non-issues.

I'm pretty sure without CBT my life would be nowhere where it is right now, so i'm very glad for its existance and would recommend anyone in a similar situation to try it with a GOOD therapist (mine was a guardian angel, battling the worst parts of my reasoning when I wasn't strong enough to do so).
In the first pass, 6 bugs were found and reported. 3 heap-use-after-free, 3 heap-buffer-overflow. Similar numbers in the second.

I'm so glad new programming languages are making strides which prevent this sort of thing outright. They don't prevent all bugs, but they sure prevent some of the most damaging ones.
Show HN: Get any Chrome Extension source code. Learn and hack
*rich people

being white has nothing to do with it. Its wealth.
Easily mitigated by washing your hands and keeping up with other standard hygiene measures. With the words of Douglas Adams: Don't panic! :)
I shave my head as well as my face, and I find conditioner is significantly superior to soap or shaving cream.
​Why Millions of Men Lose Friends in Their Twenties (2015)
I used to use Modula 2 for embedded work on small CPUs. It's hard to get programs to compile, but then they usually work. This is important when your target doesn't have much debug capability.
XWindows had that too, which when combined with point-to-focus resulted in all sorts of nasty flashing.
Shit non-mathematicians say about mathematics (a mathematician speaks up)
Can anyone here speak to the value of actually designing systems dynamics models - stocks and flows - and how that has helped you in your role?

To me it seems easier said than done as the process of surfacing all assumptions and accurately reflecting reality in your model - at least to a useful level - strikes me as extraordinarily exhaustive and time-consuming. To the point that it may only be useful if you can devote quite a lot of time and money to it.
It's hard to understand in these sorts of situations why an exchange of land isn't made. Especially in the case of Estcourt Station, where there are zero year-round residents, and the cost of maintaining this is a staffed border station, postal service, and potential police service.

I know countries generally get iffy about giving up borders, but why would the US want to keep this? Are they obligated to because someone owns land there? It feels like at least some sort of agreement to place that small parcel of land under the management of the Canadian authorities or something would save hundreds of thousands of dollars in the long run.
> You might come across a situation, where you want to switch to an application or open a new instance of it. You press (Command ⌘ + Tab) combination. and you don’t get your window, just the title in the menu bar!

If you're having that problem then you're not using the Minimize command correctly. Never use Minimize when you intend to switch between apps.

You only use Minimize when you explicitly do not want to see a window when its app is active. Typically, it's a rarely used command, but it can occasionally useful when you're working in an app that has a lot of windows open (like, say, Terminal) and you want to set some of the windows aside for awhile.

More often, you should use the Hide command. (Command+H, select "Hide" from the app menu, or Option+Click a dock icon.)

This will hide the active app and activate the next app in order. When you return to the hidden app via Command+Tab, the app and its windows will be restored just as you left it.

In the old NeXTSTEP days, the Hide and Quit commands were top-level menu buttons and always just a single click away. It's unfortunate that those commands were moved to a sub-menu in Mac OS X.

I actually wrote a little app that puts Quit and Hide buttons in the top left and right corners of the screen. It gets a lot of use.
>My evaluation is based on observation and inference.

Right, I'm asking what you observed.
WiFi Signals Can ID Individuals by Body Shape
Yep, that's my experience too.

Now, why is it an American thing? Is there any deeper reason?
Performant is a perfectly valid word which has been part of software engineering since at least the 1990s.

"... aiming to provide performant tools ..." (1995) - https://books.google.com/books?id=uZjYdk4bQgkC&pg=PA1&dq=per...

definitions for different aspects of 'peformant' (1998) - https://books.google.se/books?id=FYkmwYKBoCwC&pg=PA235&dq=%2...

"The network and hierarchical data models, introduced in the 1960's, provide a very performant data organization for well-defined, update-intensive transaction processing of large volumes of data at the cost of conceptual complexity" (1993) - https://books.google.com/books?id=Ro3zjjTNE9UC&pg=PA327&dq=p...

Here's the n-grams trend. https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=performant&yea... .

There are many domain-specific terms which have not yet made it to general dictionaries. For example, from your comments, I see you used the word 'multicast', This is not in Merriam-Webster, at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suggestions/multic... . What makes it a word but not performant? Is "zero-copy" a word? "smarthost"? "type-punning"? "upstream"?
Why are the vast majority of US children enrolled in public school if their parents are so unhappy about it?
Except that the per-capita spend on health in the US is approximately three times what it is in the UK, which seems to corresponds quite nicely to what you're saying is the difference in salaries.

So, actually, yeah, you probably could move to a UK style solution, with the same per-capita spend as in the US while still preserving the seemingly very high wages for doctors and nurses.
It allows you some time and space to recognise the unconscious thoughts, and to identify the things that cause those thoughts.
I have literally never encountered this specific UX issue. Having using OS X and macOS for just about its entire fifteen year lifespan, I don't even know how or why it would happen, to be honest.

The only issue I encounter here and there is if I have windows scattered across spaces and full-screen windows, switching just to the app usually picks the wrong window, and then because of the full-screen window complications, I can't simple Command+` around, I need to use Spaces shortcuts to navigate to the left or right.

Edit: I think I understand the scenario after thinking a few more minutes: you've closed all the windows of an application, but you have not exited the application entirely. I agree with the existing behavior. I don't want apps spawning new windows every time I go to them. If I want the window later, I don't close it. If I just don't want to see it, I hide the app -- but not minimizing it in the Dock either. Hiding it is like turning the other way, minimizing is like folding it up and putting it in my pocket. If I just hid it, I can just turn back to it when I want it. If I folded it up, I have to go through the "pain" of unfolding.
Command + ` (back-tick, right above your Tab key)
Doctor and nurse salaries are higher in the US than in most other countries, but as a percentage of healthcare costs they're very small.
Why squared error?
I'm not a Golang programmer, but the mere fact that GOOG decided Java for android is convincing enough that even GOOG does not believe in its Go.

(Frankly, I doubted that a little, until I realized Al-*-Go was not actually written in Go!)
I have to agree with you there. My toothpaste and soap is based on what is the cheapest option.

The only exception I make is for anti-perspirant (also something I haven't ever seen in hotels) because some brands make my skin become red and fall of and some don't work well enough.
The only reason it's a SPOF is they don't allow anyone to read/run/modify their code... that's what open source covers.

I think the problem is we conflate selling the only access to our code with selling access to it. If you need online hosting for your project the alternatives are almost immutable - somebody's server running project management software.

No matter what Github does developers are trending towards using open source tools to the extent Microsoft's porting their company to Linux right in front of our faces...
I completely agree with you. Perl is absolutely terrible for basic oo. Basic getters and setters needs the moose module which instantly slows down your code base beyond.

I'm a very competent oo perl developer. I recently wrote a complex large platform in Perl5. It's simply not good enough.

In addition cpan is like walking the dungeons of moria. amazing relics of complexity frozen in time.
I know of a very similar writing style where

row one has a gradient from black to darkgray

row two has a gradient from darkgray to black

row three has a gradient from black to darkray

repeating indefinitely. It helps you to move to the right next line. Not sure what it's called though
I wish it were so simple. Most apps implement tabs now too, so you also need to learn Cmd-Shift-[ and Cmd-Shift-] to get around with the keyboard.
You are assuming that trailing commas are ignored as valid, which is true of JavaScript but not of JSON or of C (the other example).
Interesting, I didn't know there's a negative connotation to the term. I thought generally the difference between an expat and an immigrant is that the former intends to return at some point, while the latter intends to settle permanently.

An expat could be a migrant worker, but not necessarily. For instance, one could go to a foreign country for university, and then decides to stay after graduation. He'd probably have to find a job, yes, but I wouldn't call him a migrant worker because he didn't emigrate for employment reasons.

Obviously, words are imprecise and there are overlaps, though this is the first time I've heard that expat could have a negative association.
Teaching Python and R to Work Together
Less useful on non-US keyboards, unfortunately, may require three keys in combination.
Uhh, as someone who was there when Android began: There was no Go in 2005. And anyway, Go started with explicit about initial goal of being a server-side language, with choices (eg, only static linking) appropriate for that goal.
Ada is fairly easy to use once you know it. It has a few quirks and many nice features. It just takes a bit more time to learn, because its way more strongly typed than most other languages. IMHO, its main advantage is not safety, though, but readability and long-term maintainability. You can take a 30 year old Ada program and compile it with the latest version of GNAT.

Anyway, please don't compare languages like Ada and Python. That's like comparing Forth and Smalltalk or apples with oranges. They have different purposes. Ada compiles to executables that run around as fast as C and C++, and like those languages it's not very suitable for rapid lego-brick type programming. For gluing together existing libraries, languages like Python are awesome but you wouldn't want to write an Operating System in Python.
You don't know what country m-jones is in.
By shaving cream do you mean the stuff that comes in a tube? Because I don't think that is such an issue, and the stuff that requires a brush is something that only very few men would use today.
> I always wonder whether people advocating phonetic spelling have ever encountered someone who speaks a different dialect.

For just this reason, English spelling reform was probably doomed from the start. Any new standard seems just as arbitrary as the old one to a speaker of a non-standard dialect. The chosen set of vowels—whatever it might be—would ring particularly untrue to the ears of millions of English speakers, who might use any 12 to 20 vowels of a pool of a few dozen in their own speech.

My own example: I grew up in a part of the U.S. that makes no distinction whatsoever between the vowels in 'thought,' 'lot,' and 'father'—yet these are three separate sounds in Received Pronunciation, and might be divided into two elsewhere. Not only can I not make three different sounds for these vowels—I do not know how they would differ!—I cannot tell the difference between them when listening to someone who can. (Perhaps the 'a' of 'father' I could note in contrast to the other two with some conscious effort.) If I were to use a phonological spelling system that split this vowel group into three, I would have to memorize by rote—again!—the spelling of many words. What was supposed to be an easy system that did away with rote memorization, turns out to be more of the same. Perhaps this second learning curve is not so steep—no 'ough'-es—but I've already gotten past the first one! Why bother again?

If, on the other hand, a phonemic alphabet were provided—something like a more elegant IPA—making our spelling as idiosyncratic as our speech, we would just have a new set of problems. First, second language learners would find no refuge from the dizzying amount of dialects and accents while they were still learning fundamentals. This would be a sore spot for any language, but especially for a common lingua franca like English is today. And then, the language of the law, the academy, and business might recede still further from students unprivileged in class, birthplace, and schooling, if they first learned to write in their own dialect, not that of the ruling classes.

There is an advantage to an orthography having some remove from the spoken language, as it provides a common ground for speakers of different dialects to communicate. Chinese ideograms do particularly well here—to draw us back toward the article—as entire articles might be written which could be understood equally well by two speakers of mutually unintelligible dialects, dialects so far removed from one another that they could be called separate languages.

I don't think I'm letting you in on anything new here, but as it is a topic I've put some thought into, I took the opportunity to turn into a windbag.

Sorry about the Twain link. Here's Gutenberg[0], if you're interested in the text all the same.

[0] http://www.gutenberg.org/files/70/70-h/70-h.htm#link2H_4_001...
I think power will always be an issue for something built into a phone. If it could run off the car, the power considerations would likely be irrelevant.

I guess nothing much will happen with it, a patchwork of point clouds is less interesting than a patchwork of photos.

Mapillary has done some work on recovering a point cloud just from correspondence between the photos.

http://blog.mapillary.com/update/2015/11/10/pointclouds.html
It seems a like a different possible explanation is a variation in publication bias (and perhaps researcher bias) over time in response to the changing status of CBT.

Studies saying "this new thing works" have an obvious appeal, particularly in a field searching for something beyond classic psychotherapy. So when CBT first appeared, studies with strong, positive results may have been favoured.

Studies saying "the mainstream thing doesn't work", or "this mainstream thing doesn't work as well as we thought" also have obvious appeal. Now that CBT is mainstream, research showing that it is less effective that thought, or not effective in particular types of cases, may be more likely to be published.
We don't have to reinvent the wheel everytime we create apps or any product using framework. Like imagine , When my every product needs login / register mechanism , i would look for something that is really fast, secure and may/may not have better approach of doing that.

So, framework are basically to speed up work in same elegant way the others are doing.