skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Maybe I shouldn't comment because I only read the abstract. My reaction was, "This isn't anything new. This is exactly how fields are interpreted." I appreciate the comment here because this is just a matter of semantics, at least from the reading of the abstract.

I am sure the author knows the subject very well. I see it is written in the area of History and Philosophy of Physics, so I assume it is there to clarify this for the non-experts, which includes many physicists who are not into the philosophy of quantum mechanics. I think that is why they wrote this article. I believe it is not intended as a physics discovery.

Quantum mechanics is very complex, at least when you try to relate it to the real world. I think the language in the early years of learning is to help gradually introduce the subject to students, and it can possibly be misleading as to what is meant by a particle. At a higher level, meaning someone who really studies quantum mechanics like an older theoretical physics graduate student, how quantum mechanic works is more clear.

Here is the way I view fields and particles: a wave function for the field (not to be confused with the field itself) has a number of energy eigenstates. These eigenstates correspond to the existence of a number of particles. The simplest example is a simple harmonic oscillator in Schroedinger's equation. The discrete energy states correspond to: 0 particles for the ground state, 1 particle for the first excited state, 2 particles for the second state, and so on. This simple harmonic oscillator is also an example of a field theory where space has only a single point. Normal field theory corresponds an equation like this at each point in space (an infinite number of points). It includes an interaction between neighbouring points. This version of a harmonic oscillator at each point in space corresponds to a simple scalar field with a mass. This field theory can be solved exactly using Schroedinger's equation, though this is seldom done. I find this calculation to be very instructive.

The idea of "particles" in the simple harmonic oscillator is very trivial, with a one to one mapping between the number of particles and the energy state. In a non-interacting field theory, there are many different states related to a single particle, with the momentum being involved. Particles are less clear in an interacting theory. We usually only consider the states where the particles are far apart and effectively non-interacting. When particles are close together, meaning the wave function has a significant contribution from the interactive terms in the field equation, we have trouble understanding this and we consider it transient states that we call the interaction (or collision in particle accelerator).

Obviously I am not capable of describing this in a simple sentence or two. I am sure others could. But to me at least it is a complex idea.
Small functions are generally uninteresting to test. As smallness approaches "one liner", you're just verifying the compiler. Yes, 1+1 == 2.
> My cluster is small - I have <100 machines at peak

Let me ask: WTF are people are doing that <100 machines is a "small cluster"? I ran a Top 100 (as measured by Quantcast) website with 23 machines and that included kit and caboodle -- Dev, Staging and Production environments. And quite some of that were just for HA purposes not because we needed that much... Stackexchange also runs about two dozen servers. Yes, yes, Google, Facebook runs datacenters but there's a power law kind of distribution here and the iron needs are falling very, very fast as you move from say Top 1 website to Top 30.
it seems that none of the container frameworks are generally ready.

None of the container frameworks on Linux are ready, but that doesn't mean that's the case in general.
Well I am not talking about a 1M node outage. That you cannot fix with anything. I am talking about a maximum datacenter wide outage, that actually happens pretty often. Amazon has game days, Netflix has chaos monkeys for the same reason. Make sure that you can rebuild parts of your infra pretty quick.
Make your code testable, but public fields are fine.
Now those are some best practices I can live by.
I'm like mannykannot, I drink a daily espresso or two, often after dinner, simply because I like the taste. I've stopped for more than a week multiple times in the past (vacations, coffeeshop closed, etc) and I never noticed any negative nor positive effects.

Sometimes when I'm really sleepy during the day I've tried a double espresso, still no visible effects.
It's definitely not too late to switch away from WhatsApp. These chat apps seems to have relatively short lifetimes. ICQ, AOL IM, and Yahoo IM (at one time or another these were all dominant).

Of course, whoever comes next to dominate chat may or may not have more customer friendly privacy/data sharing than FB/WhatsApp.
Investment money and government subsidization aren't the same thing but I get the gist. Money for doing what you'd rather be doing instead of what you're currently doing. Sounds lame though. Too many strings attached. Most people here aren't chasing that. They just want a better adblock.
Hooking Up the Micro Parser Combinators Library and LLVM
@alex-yo Your post is almost a mirror of my situation - senior generalist dev with 15 years experience Ruby/Java/SQL and numerous other languages and frameworks too many to list, looking for something more challenging and unable to relocate due to family situation.

I've tried unsuccessfully to apply via the main remote work channels and rarely get a response back. The one time I did, the position was cancelled by the company after I made it to the 2nd round.

Hope you have better luck than me and a commenter can unlock the secret. There are lots of great people like us not able to work in the office.
"Geothermal" (as they call it here) of that sort can be had in the US, but it's very expensive to install unless you have a large yard (otherwise you have to dig even deeper) and it's difficult to impossible to recover the cost of the system at sale if you move before saving enough to justify the cost—which itself may be difficult if you consider the opportunity cost of the money, and especially if you take out a loan to do it. The buried hoses/pipes also have a limited lifespan, and will need to be replaced in a couple decades, again at great expense.

In short, we don't do stuff like that in the US (at least, not much) because it's often a good way to lose money.

Also, I don't know about Spain, but large parts of the US suffer very high humidity through much of the year. Unless you're on an exposed hilltop with a breeze, it's miserable without good air conditioning. Houses aren't build with cooling-via-open-window in mind anymore, either, having fewer and smaller windows than older houses and being built with no thought to positioning the windows and the house itself such that prevailing winds can blow through it. Many interior materials aren't intended to tolerate even moderate temperature and/or humidity swings anymore, and will deteriorate much more quickly under those conditions. So there aren't many days in a year when it's possible to get by with no heating or cooling and just open your windows, either.
I know what you mean by 'messy scientific code', hairy stuff. Deal with it almost on a daily basis. 10 element tuples, weird names etc. Makes you wanna puke at the beginning. But then, as I get to understand what they are trying to say (i.e. Business Purpose) things get easier. Somehow I remember what 6th element in the tuple is and where approximately in 2000 LOC function should I look for something. BUT... When it comes to 'properly engineered' piece of infrastructure OOP shit filled with frameworks and factories, I have no idea. No matter how hard I try I cannot remember nor understand what the fuck are they trying to say. My guess, this is because they have got nothing to say, really.
Most, not all. I think you are still better of listening to your customers.
And in another 100 years or so, this will finally make it to textbooks...

Quantum field theory is weird, but there are much more compelling analogies in classical world than particles. (Feynman was a fan of particles, but I presume he was aware of the problems with this representation).

When you speak of fields and wave packets, you eliminate the uncertainty principle, and double-slit experiment is no longer a paradox — no small feat to achieve.
> The strategy pattern is a hack that belongs in the past, and you should use lambdas instead

In that case, your lambda object is your strategy. One of the good points that the "Design Patterns" authors make and that everyone else ignores is that these patterns are names for recurring structures that pop up independently of implementation language and environment. Some silly functor object is one way of implementing the more abstract "Strategy" pattern. Your lambda is a better one in many cases. It's the same high-level concept.
Of topic question, but I find that it is only when I am in a mode of extreme procrastination that I find myself even looking past page 2. And it's very rarely that I go past page 1. I wonder who else has time to review that many titles.
Agree with the first part but I also believe that physics can't explain the hard problem of consciousness.
This is basically the crux of this issue. If businesses want to be businesses instead of charities, their business model has to create some sort of win-win where they provide value that people are willing to pay money for above the cost of providing that value. Your parent comment gave an example of that not happening. One potential place the brick-and-mortar could have provided value is in the realm of trying something for yourself before buying - not having that capability seems to be the only major weakness of internet retail - but apparently that wasn't part of their business model. Now if businesses want to rely more on their patrons support to counterbalance a weak business model, they are free to do so, but it changes lots of calculations. It seems far more likely to work for independent record stores, which have opportunities to build a closer relationship with their customers, than for places like Best Buy.
> The classification should be based on its size, shape, and make up. Instead they classified it based on the number of objects in its orbit, which is so arbitrary and weird.

Why should it be one rather than the other? What harm or benefit comes from Pluto being called, or not being called, a planet?

> If hypothetically we cleared up the objects and dumped them in Earths orbit, Pluto would suddenly become a planet and Earth would lose its classification.

No, because the definition requires that a planet clears its own neighbourhood. Having a nearby technological civilization clean up its neighbourhood for it doesn't cut it.

> Just bite the bullet and accept there are a lot of small planets in our solar system

Dwarf planets, you might say.
Any suggestions on similar open-source tools?
So I have to write BS for AP CS A, and I have to do it in a bad language, and we'll never get Python or Lisp?

Okay, College Board, I warned you...

smack

this is for the above.

smack

and this is for teaching CS poorly in general.

smack

and this is for making us all by overpriced graphing calculators, thus keeping demand high...
I have several past clients running docker in production just fine.

At my current job we run nearly all our services in docker.

I've replied to this type of comment on here at least a dozen times, it has nothing to do with docker, it is a lack of understanding how it all works.

Understand the history, understand the underlying concepts and this is no more complex than an advanced chroot.

Now on the tooling side, I personally stay away from any plug-ins and tools created by the docker team, they do docker best, let other tools manage dockers externalities.

I've used weave since it came out, and it's perfect for network management and service discovery.

I prefer to use mesos to manage container deploys.

There is an entirely usable workflow with docker but I like to let the specialists specialize, and so I just use docker (.10.1 even), because all the extra stuff is just making it bloated.

I'm testing newer versions on a case by case basis, but nothing new has come out that makes me want to upgrade yet.

And I'll probably keep using docker as long as it stays separate from all the cruft being added to the ecosystem.
Symantec does this with 10's of thousands of nodes. Your point is moot.
Nothing lasts forever. I assume they would have laser scanned David by now and could 3D print other ones if required.
It seems like it's good to be able to rebuild everything at a moment's notice after patching against a major exploit, though. You should have a fast way to rebuild secrets and servers after the next heartbleed-scale vulnerability.
TIL the unit of amplitude, mJy, refers to Janskys [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jansky
There is a search box at the bottom, try "galaxy dark matter"
don't most people use an orchestration tool like ansible/chef/puppet etc to manage their fleet?

I don't. All my configuration management is done with OS packages. And once you start making OS packages to do mass-scale configuration, the whole premise of Docker becomes pointless. If I have OS packages, and I can provision them using KickStart, or JumpStart, or imgadm(1M) + vmadm(1M), without using or needing any code, then what exactly do I need Docker for?
It's a lot more complicated than that. If you were forced to buy a US manufactured car in in 1979, it was pretty much guaranteed it would be an ugly, unreliable piece of garbage. And Detroit had already been a mess for decades. In response to Japanese competition and investment, US auto manufacturing quality has completely turned around, and is vastly better than before Japan was a big presence in the US market.
Here's what I want.

- The UI to look as good or better than the UI on Mac OS X. I'm not willing to compromise on looks.

- The library to be cross-platform. I want to deploy the software on Mac OS X, Windows, and Linux. I don't care about mobile right now.

- I want it to be possible and easy to (a) develop new features on my own and (b) change existing features. I'd rather reimplement a textbox from scratch if it's the only way to change a control. If this means I need something more like GLib instead of GTK+, so be it.

- I won't use the web. No HTML, no CSS, no Javascript. Sorry.

The end goal is to build the best, easiest UI environment to write software with. If it's not possible to build this with existing UIs and I have to write one from scratch, so be it.
I have a processing pipeline that does crawling, indexing and some analytics on the crawled data - I am building a vertical-focused search engine focused on catering for some specific kinds of companies.

Usually my cluster is very small, unless the pipeline is in progress. At this very moment I am not doing any processing, so I only have 3 machines up.
I want to agree with the spirit of what you're saying, but given the potential complexity and uniqueness of a GUI, I think it's an extremely hard problem in practice, if not impossible. You're asking for a toolkit that is both generic enough to provide the common functionality you're describing, yet also comprehensive and flexible enough to cope with the diverse needs of different applications and the diverse conventions and capabilities of different platforms.
The argument was not compelling nor well reasoned.
better adblock lol! I mentioned government or organization to specifically counter the rebuttal you went straight for! Oh well, moth to a flame. A lot of VCs have very polarizing political views, or have their funds in things you or historians may not agree with, which is the same as with governments.
> I know you haven't

I used QT before. Please don't be presumptuous.
Oh, I wasn't insinuating you looked all the way to page 3, I was just making a comment along the lines of "why do we have pages more than 2". I guess the older pages serve as archives?
It depends on how small, and how swarm-y. If the function is hilariously simple, and improves readability (like a premade getter for an alist or cons based structure in lisp), just do it. If it's pretty big, and you'll never reuse it... No. If you must, keep it local.
I don't think the intention was in any way to deceive the audience. I personally see it as part of their post-modern filmmaking[0] style.

What personally makes this style interesting to me is that there are usually several layers of meaning and intention. And usually references to other films or common perception or convention.

Even if the intention is to tell the truth or a true story, there's always the bias of the storyteller, the selection of what to tell, and what not to mention etc. So in this case, the Coen brothers re-used the "based on a true story" concept, and even exaggerated it. They re-use the format, but mock it at the same time.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernist_film
I Spent $15.33 on Snapchat Filters – Here's the ROI
This is because docker wasn't written for apples sad excuse for bsd, it was written for Linux.

It's cute that they're trying to port it other places, but if you're trying to run with stability, don't use a mac, use a Linux box.

Why they did this; I have no idea, but it's a horrible idea.

If nothing else use VirtualBox, install Linux, and use docker that way.
....or a winter storm that lasts a few days.
The article links to a story about Free Basics, specifically the sentence:

And the whole thrust of his company’s strategy is to persuade billions of future users that Facebook is the only bit of the internet they really need.

I think mentioning Thiel is valid, I outright disagree with what Gawker did, but Thiel then hid behind a different and unrelated lawsuit to enact his revenge, both Zuckerberg and Thiel have the money to oppress those that can't match the size of their wallets and they're doing so, the comparison is fair.
reading this makes me want to buy one
> fundamental nature of existence

> as physics almost by definition allows for multiple, completely equivalent descriptions of reality

> it's very hard to use physics to show what something fundamentally is.

There's no such thing as fundamental nature of existence. We just have mental models (like quantum mechanics) to describe the patterns of our observations. The idea that there is some fundamental underlying matter makes no sense, we only have perceptions and mental models do describe them. Like you said, there might be multiple physical models, as long as they give the same predictions, they're all correct.
It is actually a really good name for search engines, as it is completely invented word.
Relying on electricity for heating should be on the list of questionable decisions, though. That changes the parameters of emergency planning significantly.

We also had temperatures in the nineties for the last five days here, yet nobody has AC in their home. It's not a big problem with insulation. Of course we also don't have non-redundant overland power lines. Power outages we super rare.
Around here (midwest) hail or wind usually knocks out composite roofing in 10-15 years—much less if you're unlucky. There's little point in springing for the "50 year" composites and similar.

I guess the solar panels would protect the roof a bit, but I'd expect a bad hail storm to be bad news for those, too.
I haven't read this series but if you want a good introduction to Le Guin you might try Changing Planes, a 2005 book of short stories. Fairly light reading, but some stories are pretty mind-bending in an anthropological sense.

It's pretty hard to say why some stories click with some readers. I found some of her earlier stories fairly didactic, but then again they were written in the 60's.
Yes, it is weird, but I disagree with your interpretation.

You wrote: "If there are asteroids and debris in it's orbit around the sun, it no longer counts as a planet." That Wikipedia link I pointed to says: "As to the extent of orbit clearing required, Jean-Luc Margot emphasises "a planet can never completely clear its orbital zone, because gravitational and radiative forces continually perturb the orbits of asteroids and comets into planet-crossing orbits" and states that the IAU did not intend the impossible standard of impeccable orbit clearing.[2]

It further lists a few attempts to define things more rigorously.

You write: "it's only purpose is to exclude the newly discovered planets from that classification". The same page also points out "In 2015, a proposal was made to use the criterion in extending the definition to exoplanets". This is from the same Margot, whose proposed criteria can "categorise a body based only on its own mass, its semi-major axis, and its star's mass."
if both the code and the infra it's running on is stateless, then yeah.
Farmers Plant Beehive Guard Posts to Repel Elephants
The minwage argument cuts both ways of course, in that a $19 vinyl record from the story takes awhile to pay for at $7.25/hr.
Max Levchin: Why It's Time to Reimagine the Financial Services Industry
When investing in a country, what businesses want are predictable laws and consistent enforcement of them. Then they can decide if it is worthwhile to invest.

An anathema to investment are arbitrary and capricious laws and enforcement. Countries with such a legal system tend to remain poor because few are willing to risk investing in their economies.
Great book, except for the bit about being able to boot an Apple ][ with a binary from a SETI download.

[I've often wondered what a computer and OS designed by an extraterrestrial civilization would look like. But it's impossible to for just us to project our own systems out any reasonable amount of time. It's unclear that we'll even have keyboards and displays 100 years from now, or that we'll have replaced C with something better <-- troll :-) ]
Corruption in many african countries is a byproduct of the fact that their countries are depending on aid and NGO and the money from these donors can be used for corruption and straight out fraud.

It's not the African countries that don't want the trade it's the Europeans and Americans who have an interest in keeping their farmers occupied.
The "clueless tourist" anecdote at the beginning reminds me of a time I agreed to meet a friend in Florence. We agreed to meet "at the David" - I was thinking the one in Piazza della Signoria.

It turns out there are not two, but three Davids in Florence. The one in the Piazza, the one in the Galleria, and a third one in Piazzale Michelangelo, made of bronze.
Well, yes, but if you every write a class for C#, modern Java, or pretty much any language save C++ or Python (and even then you should write functions) that has the word "strategy" in it, you're doing it wrong, and should be punished for reinventing language features using OO methodology.

Was it Steve Yegge who menationed the Perl community calling Design Patterns "FP for Java"?
What Are the Demographics of Heaven?
Trust Issues
Being able to rebuild critical infrastructure from source, and know that you'll be able to reliably deploy it, is a _huge_ win for security.

After a bunch of harrowing experiences with clients, I'm pretty close to believing "using packages for critical infrastructure is a bad idea".