skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I once proposed that for airport rental cars - you'd call for a rental car, and it would self-drive, slowly, from the rental yard to the terminal. Then the renter takes over driving. At return, the driver gets out at the terminal, pushes the "done with rental" button, and the car drives itself, slowly, back to the rental yard.

Major destinations with big parking lots could be on the system. Convention centers, sports stadiums, major hotels. Again, the driver gets out at a convenient unloading point and the car drives and parks itself.

All autonomous driving would be around 15-20mph. At that speed, slamming on the brakes is an adequate solution to almost all problems.

But airport security was too touchy an issue a decade ago. What if one of the self-driving cars had a bomb in it? Might be worth another look now.
مشاهدة فيلم حسن وبقلظ
100 database records on the free tier is way too low. That isn't even enough to make a half decent version of the "Contacts" database you have as an example in the Quick Start guide. If a developer can't build anything useful with it they can never go to their Head of Development with a side project to demonstrate what restdb.io can do. Look at what your competition offers as a starting point.
Ah yes, only supporting constraints on the parameters can be annoying if your problem requires that.
Explain St. Kitts?
I love Paperpile, which would accommodate some/many of these needs.
For trucks the easy parts are also the dangerous parts, because those are where the accidents happen, because drivers fall asleep.
Unity is a good engine but I've been playing around with libGDX lately, got a first person XP walking around a cube now with a page of code. Easy, I'm not a game dev.

That same code runs unchanged on Android, PC (Windows, Linux, Mac), iOS (I've not tried this) and HTML (using the excellent GWT compiler). I'm using IntelliJ (it works but not as nice as Eclipse, unfortunately Android support seems better now in IntelliJ). Just pick the target and run.

Zuckerberg has a good idea but needs to use libGDX to make it a success. Call all stop and go libGDX. He won't succeed with just Unity.

As a side note, I don't use Facebook, can't stand it.

PS I'm not in favor of Facebook winning on this either, Steam rocks.
One thing that helps for expressing sympathy is using words or metaphors that describe the the person's emotions, like "that sounds scary" or "you sound angry"

Another thing is to describe what seems to be the heart of the problem, like "you want to trust him, but you aren't sure it's a good idea."

Also, once the person feels like they have expressed themselves and been well-heard, that may be all they want. But other times they then move on to a solution, either on their own or are interested in your ideas.
If you have a limited number of devices, or use a lot of data, Verizon beats out Project Fi -- Fi shines when you have multiple devices (in my case, phone, tablet, laptop) with modems, and don't want to pay a $10/device/mo access fee.
I'm not sure the fees are going to go down so much as that a ton of hedge funds are going to go out of business. There are many funds generating real alpha and have made outsized returns year after year (Renaissances' medallion fund has made something like 40% per year average since inception). DE Shaw, 2 Sigma, Renaissance, Tudor, Bridgewater, AQR have all historically done pretty well.

On the other hand, there are a ton of hedge funds that have never generated alpha in their entire existence and lack even the most basic modicum of skill.
I happen to find your example of why to use a object a bit hilarious.

You are right, readelf has the object in a structure -- because that is what elf is...

typedef struct {
uint32_t st_name;
unsigned char st_info;
unsigned char st_other;
uint16_t st_shndx;
Elf64_Addr st_value;
uint64_t st_size;
} Elf64_Sym;

If you wanted the object why did you need readelf in the first place? Why not just read the elf format directly and bypass readelf all together? That seems to be what you are advocating by having readelf passing a object instead of what it does today.
Lost in Translation: the importance of visual design localisation
It's a joke, but not the one you thought.

The joke is that the syntax of Algol didn't actually look all that much like what people mean when they say "Algol-like syntax". No curly braces anywhere to be seen.
This _might_ just be an oversight, would you like to file a bug? If not, I can.
This article really should have gone through spell check or been proofread, re: "have to say? to summarize it", "oine", "compatibel", possibly more.

Still, interesting that Zen is performing well.
That's nice, but having CORBA implementations - why?
I guess that would require breaking Web programmers out of the SOA/microservices mindset where data is strongly encapsulated by code.
The article praises Gawker for often "punching up". For the youngens this "don't punch down" rule that someone recently invented is a load of hooey. People who control the mainstream media define up and down and tell you it is beyond the pale to make fun of any aspect of those defined as down.

Honestly as an older gentleman (hehe) it's shocking how badly we have clamped down on free speech. When I was young we would wonder how much wilder can the next generation of kids get? How far will the bounds of free expression be expanded.

The answer turned out to be "not at all". These things go in cycles and the current round of private sector driven censorship (yes, please explain to me how the private sector can't censor) is probably a reaction to the free wheeling days from the late 1950s to about the late 1980s.
As a frequent travel I will say that this is brilliant!
s/close nit group/close-knit group/
Can't wait for the bottled homebrew for it to drive it around. It's still at 1.10.

--HEAD just hangs forever on 'Checking out branch master' for some reason for me.
which proves the only point that was being made? Does your mind frequently attempt to lessen the blow by noticing the blow does in fact exist but is small?
OK, Lilith took less time to write, and it was (also) on crummy hardware. Was it as useful as Unix was in production? Lilith never really took off. Either it wasn't as capable as alternatives, or it was marketed badly. My money is on "not as actually useful as theory predicted", though I have no evidence.

I note that Borland brought out a Turbo Pascal to go with Turbo C (fixing some of Pascal's shortcomings in the process), but never bothered with a Turbo Modula-2. If Modula-2 was better than Pascal, why not? (And, since the initial article seemed to be a fan of Algol, why didn't Borland do a Turbo Algol?) Microsoft had their Microsoft C that competed with Borland, but didn't bother to do a Microsoft Pascal. Why not? Because nobody cared about Modula-2, and not enough people cared about Pascal. And why was that? Because in practice, it was easier to write software in C than in Modula-2, or even than in Pascal.

You're idealizing dead languages. They're dead for a reason, and it's not just historical accident. In the real world, they were harder to use than the languages that theory said should be the best.
Build with Support in Mind
"Something as simple as finding next text search match takes about a second."

I'm not sure how our configurations differ but on a fairly modern machine (say, surface pro 4 i5) I've not had visual studio 2015 slow down, and editing and searching is az zippy as with Vim for me.

I've had the experience that some third party tools have bogged down the experience, though.
Things Emotionally Intelligent People Refuse to Think
True, but that's only half the deal.

Valve opened up access and the research to their lighthouse tech, but it requires sensors on the device for orientation.

I don't think the existing Rifts have these sensors so room scale VR may be something they're just not able to do. This is a pretty big disadvantage.
False Dichotomy. Russia hacked the DNC. Russia may or may not have also leaked the emails. They don't have to be the same event.
Being somewhat pedantic here, but do you need 'max' in that? Also, perhaps even 'Invalid' is unnecessary as regardless of the last attempt being invalid or valid you're going to let the user attempt it. e.g. say this number is 3, you're going to stop authenticating at either 3 fails, or at 2 fails then a success (because the person is authenticated). ;)
Yup, I changed my comment while you were replying. I still disagree that a lot of this isn't the result of the War on Drugs (and there are studies that agree[1]: "More than 50 percent of people in federal prisons are incarcerated for drug law violations. Almost 500,000 people are behind bars for a drug law violation on any given night in the United States – ten times the total in 1980.") but again we end at the same conclusion.

[1] http://www.drugpolicy.org/sites/default/files/DPA%20Fact%20S...
I suspect a major reason it's ridiculous something like Graffiti isn't widely available in 2016 is because of patents, FUD and NIH.

A text entry system that requires visual attention which you can't use while driving a car might be considered a safety feature. ;) Then again, it might just kill people faster who insist on texting while they're driving without looking at the road. ;( YOLO! BOOM

Dasher has different goals and trade-offs than Graffiti, so its useful for different kinds of applications, but it supports some very important features (like alternative alphabets, and language modeling) that are impossible for Graffiti to provide, which many applications require (especially Hiragana, constrained grammars, text messaging and chat with Unicode and emoji symbols, easy training, and accessibility for people with limited motion or alternative input methods).

The paper comparing Graffiti and Unistroke [1] measured Graffiti at up to 11.4 words per minute with a consistent 26% correction rate, and Unistroke at up to 15.8 words per minute with decreasing correction rate from 43% to 16%.

Dasher is faster and has a steep but easy learning curve (it's self revealing and doesn't require a reference card).

David MacKay described an experiment in his Google Tech Talk [2] that measured novice users performance over time. Bottom of the class started at 5 words per minute, and improved to 10 words per minute after an hour of practice; top of the class started at 12 words per minute, and got to 25 words per minute after one hour of practice.

Expert dasher users using a hands-free eye tracking interface have been measured at up to 25 words per minute with an error rate of essentially zero.

I also think Dasher would be quite useful and natural for head mounted displays, and that is a fruitful avenue for further research. [3] [4]

[1] http://www.yorku.ca/mack/chi2008b.html

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ie9Se7FneXE

[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFQgluUwV2U

[4] https://github.com/xanxys/construct
Ask HN: Any others coping with “starting but not finishing?” syndrome?
As eager developers we often start new shiny little projects, "this is going to be the best thing since sliced docker containers!" only to have turned our backs toward them a few weeks later. This always results in feelings of inadequacy, and you've wasted a lot of time and emotional effort in the process.

Do you have this problem? Have you found ways to deal with it?
Right, lets just forget about Canada, or South America, Africa, Europe, Oceania, the rest of the Middle and Far East, the other countries on the Arabian peninsula and pretty much most of Asia. Lets just pretend the other 252 countries don't exist, are all equally terrible and for whatever reason obviously don't deserve to have a say in any of this.
PG was far more aggressive about banning people than we are; partly because he had less time, and partly less patience. After years of trying to be more patient, I'm unconvinced that patience in this area is a virtue. It seems to lead to more trouble and no fewer complaints. When efforts to do things a certain way lead to condemnation for the opposite, it seems like a sign that something's not working.
Yeah, and sometimes businesses have been able to collect credits from the government for compliance with such-and-such. When they're forced to bleed money though (in this instance all that extra space adds up by itself, plus the opportunity costs -- imagine the pushback if airplane seats had to be way bigger and roomier!), and not all bled money can be passed on to the consumers, and even if it's done in the name of some good cause, the fact that it's still forced bleeding is what I don't really like, and would appreciate less of.

I'm kind of big on cyborg technology and other futurist ideas (like brain emulations). Varying degrees are expensive and not even available right now, but a large part of that is a serious lack of funding which in turn cuts business opportunities. (I would bet if society focused more efforts and money on general human augmentation instead of just helping the disabled, the disabled would come along for the ride since the non-disabled market is so much greater. As I touched on in another comment, the second-order effects often provide more value for these niche markets than targeting the niche markets directly.) While we transition to better tech that even the poor can afford we can still consider forced money bleeding, but I'd like to consider demand side solutions too.
Ethernet and Wifi are broadcast. So, while two identical MACs are on the same local network you may run into issues. But, once the two MACs are on separate subnets (e.g. different coffee shops) then you'll be fine as the MAC addresses aren't routed beyond the local router.
Solid is a noble effort but I am skeptical that it would solve the problem, for two reasons:

1. Application functionality is often deeply coupled to its data format. When building on a standardized data format, how does one add new, novel features? If you extend the standard, then you now have a non-standard data format, and the features you added won't be recognized by other apps that use the format. No one wants to wait for the standardization process to complete before they can ship a feature, so inevitably apps will ship various incompatible extensions. Then, when you try to move your data between apps, you find that a bunch of stuff breaks. There's no clear solution to this, other than for everyone to stop innovating, which obviously isn't what we want.

2. How does having standardized data formats suddenly prompt decentralization? Yes, it means you can more easily try out competing apps, but those competitors still face the same high barriers to entry. VCs don't like to fund the second player in a market, much less the tenth. Open source and hobby projects aren't suddenly able to compete when they still lack resources to run a service.

This blog post actually started out being specifically a response to Solid, arguing that decentralizing storage alone (without compute) is not enough, but I ended up not feeling great about targeting them so I cut that part out...
Ask HN: Learning better web design practices?
Hi HN,

I've started a Free Software project that aims to be secure. The feedback I've received was mostly positive, but the negative feedback was very nondescript.

Source code:

https://github.com/paragonie/airship

Example website:

https://cspr.ng

I've been told, "This looks like something out of the 1990's," etc. but none of the UI criticism received was actionable by any stretch of the imagination.

What are some resources to learn better web design?
There’s more to open-source than license.

Such as? You seem to have a mental model of things that make a project objectively open source, that don't include the license. I'd be curious what those things are.
They are reframing as "making lives better for truckers" so that truckers don't resist the change and boycott their employer through their unions. Eventually plan IS to get rid of the truckers.
It's possible to write perfectly correct[1] code in 'C'. It's just that some people can't be bothered, and they can't be bothered because it's somewhat tedious.

[1] not to C.A.R. Tony Hoare levels of "provably correct" , the other sort of correct.

Pre-open source, I never saw buffer overflows. When I was dealing with full time, professional 'C' coders, this didn't happen. Because we all talked to each other and taught each other how to not do that. It's like any other skill or bundle of habits.

I did see the odd "signed integer going negative" or other integer overflow problem, but that was much more about broken analysis and flawed testing. Yeah, it took a little more time to make sure this was the case, but it was just required.
For sports are head-to-head match-ups with scores, and have leagues with sufficient games per season, you can evaluate the amount that luck is involved by comparing the points-scored/points-allowed to win/loss over a season.

Merely empirically determine the appropriate exponent to input for the pythagorean win percentage[1]. Baseball uses an exponent slightly under 2, while basketball uses an exponent slightly under 14. The higher the exponent, the less likely a poor team is to defeat a good team.

In fact this can be generalized to sports without points if you have some other way of estimating a team/player's "quality" normalized to 1 being "average" which is all the points-scored/points-allowed ratio does.

[edit]

Note that the Jamesian (points-scored/points-allowed) quality metric doesn't work as well in games where draws are common (e.g. soccer/football), and different quality metrics will yield different exponents, so do not allow apples-to-apples comparisons. For what it's worth, applying James's quality metric to league football yields an exponent of about 1.3[2], which is in line with the intuition of ranking these 3 sports from most to least luck per win:

Soccer, Baseball, Basketball

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_expectation

2: http://www.soccermetrics.net/soccer-pythagorean-theory/why-t...
“Elm – Front end with Guarantees” video recording
The Node.js community is “completely feral”
NHTSA Level 3 ("Limited Self-Driving: Vehicles at this level of automation enable the driver to cede full control of all safety-critical functions under certain traffic or environmental conditions and in those conditions to rely heavily on the vehicle to monitor for changes in those conditions requiring transition back to driver control. The driver is expected to be available for occasional control, but with sufficiently comfortable transition time. The Google car is an example of limited self-driving automation.") is OK. That means that the self-driving system can recognize situations it can't handle (snow, potholes, crowds in streets) and come to a safe stop if the driver doesn't take over.

It's Level 2 ("adaptive cruise control in combination with lane centering") that's the problem. Therein lies the deadly valley - good enough that the driver can tune out, but not good enough to handle trouble. That's where Tesla is. Level 2 with strongly enforced hands-on-wheel seems to be OK, but don't let the driver take their hands off for long periods.
Cool Article on QA
You have to remember we are talking about wifi here. You are correct in a wired network but the last hop can be thought of as a hub. All of the packets will be routed to the AP and the AP will broadcast them to all devices it's the NICs job to accept or reject the packtes and even if the MACs match as the packet moves up the OSI model they will be dropped by the legit NIC and yours will move the packets up. Now on a wired network you are correct lots of packet loss depending on L1 switches vs L3 switches, routers, etc.
Government controls which would enable censorship have been proposed at meetings of the International Telecommunication Union, and have gained significant support. Notably, the proposals are supported by countries known for internet censorship, and opposed by the United States.

It is a pretty obvious fact that internationalized control of internet governance will make censorship more likely, and acceptable, than US control does.

Here is just one example: https://rsf.org/en/news/new-treaty-signed-not-all

> Reporters Without Borders reiterates its appeal to ITU member countries to preserve the Internet as a place of freedom, as a place for the free exchange of views and information.
Concern also focused on article 5B of the treaty concerning spam, which says:
“Member States should endeavour to take necessary measures to prevent the propagation of unsolicited bulk electronic communications and minimize its impact on international telecommunication services. Member States are encouraged to cooperate in that sense.”
The problem stems from the fact that, to block this kind of content, governments will first have to identify it and will therefore have to use Internet control tools. Some governments do this already, but such action has never been recognized in a UN treaty.
So this article sets a precedent which governments that have little interest in freedom of information would be able to use to justify the deployment of filtering and blocking mechanisms.

Here is another: https://www.publicknowledge.org/news-blog/blogs/itu-wcit-and...

> A recently released ITU document summarizing various proposals to modify the existing ITU regulations (“ITRs”) confirms what folks have been saying and leaking for some time now. The Russian Federation, various Arab states, and others have submitted proposals that would expressly ratify the right of member states to disrupt communication in the name of national security, and to limit the ability of parties to route around censorship or communicate anonymously by providing members states the authority to determine routing paths and to prevent “misuse and misappropriation of numbering resources.” (See, for example, proposed MOD 30 & 31A – but there are numerous other proposals that could achieve the same end).
You go ahead.
>I'm personally struggling to find a way of answering this that doesn't sound ridiculous on account of the fact that I've been obsessing over this stuff for several decades.

Then go ahead and sound ridiculous! You've marinated your mind in the material, so I can only benefit from knowing what connections you see.

>These subjects address the heart of what it means to be able to make decisions and use language effectively. This subject matter is essentially a continuation of a broad attempt at a modern conceptualization of meaning, and as such it's value is immediately obvious to me... You should value this material because it is this kind of material that describes what 'value' is, why it is important, and what limitations it has.

Really? I might have used similar descriptions for certain applications of probabilistic modelling and information theory to neuroscience and cognitive science, but why for this particular conjunction of graphical models, randomized forms of NP-complete computational problems, and statistical physics?

>But this is all absurd when I try to apply it to a specific book.

Oh. Well, can you just spout off in general for me, then?

>It's a low rung on a ladder so tall nobody has seen the top.

Well, nobody would call it research if they knew exactly what they were doing.
Exploiting two buggy SRP implementations
Oooh, that sounds great. I'll give it a try. Thanks!

Any idea whether it has good support for large files (e.g. a 300k character novel)? I've tried a ton of iPad editors but most of them can't handle large files, or don't have good scrolling support so it's a PITA to go to the end of the text.
It isn't working!

Should I add chocolate and a melted marshmallow for reinforcement?
Technically radians and degrees are dimensionless since they're ratios.

More to the point, though, is 'sin' and 'cos' are also methods, so having 'to_degrees' as a method seems reasonable.