skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It just occurred to me that pro-fossil fuel trolls might realize they are losing the argument that there is no anthropocentric global climate change, and instead decide fight government regulations by arguing it is out of control and so there is no point in trying to stop it.
I always understood it as being whatever can be straightforwardly tacked onto a typical DFA implementation. I though that's how people came up with it—whichever extras were the easiest to implement without mucking anything else up, so in a way they "came for free". (It's possible I misunderstood, I don't know for sure.)
Doesn't matter what the percentage is today, it's what it will be in the future...

It's a lot easier to say, "buy a second home or apt and make some money renting it out" than it is to say "make some money by letting a stranger go through all your personal shit. And if you don't, you're racist"

"Home sharing" is over. Airbnb is all about being a broker for unlicensed mini-hotels now.
This is true of all industries, however. Having a family and owning a home are not attributes found exclusively amongst tech workers.
Nice comment by Trevor Pott http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/09/07/my_dell_merger_wish_...

> More precisely, they didn't understand their own irrelevance.

> EMC's brass – along with that of many other tech companies – believed in a sort of manifest destiny. Their corporate largesse and sheer market share meant that they could dictate terms to customers. They believed, seemingly honestly, that this would persist.

...

> To this end, my wish list for EMC II revolves around R&D. Dell: please let EMC II experiment. Let them try new things. Above all let them fail.

Archive link http://archive.is/tYQy7
Pip is building right now, will give dropbox soon.
Snowden speaks to the largest group of people in one place at one time.
Core Team – PULP Platform
I agree that equal outcome is undesirable. But if you truly had equal opportunity for something universally desired, let's say higher education, you would expect to see in your freshman class across all colleges a distribution matching the general population in all these factors, like gender/race/disabilities, and I would add wealth too.

But when we look at these distributions we see some under represented, and some over represented. That seems to imply that there wasn't equal opportunity, or there's different desirability among the groups (e.g. maybe 90% of very tall people would rather play NBA basketball than go to college).
So by the same rationalization you don't vote either?
Oh man, that's rough, and reading this makes me worry about you. I know it's not much, but if you feel like sharing your experiences or want someone to talk to, let me know at hn@ycombinator.com and I'll send you my personal email address.
I'm not the parent poster, but I'm touched by your comment. I believe that aspiring to an accurate, honest understanding of the world is empowering. Inversely, convincing people that they are victims of oppression (to degrees that go beyond the evidence) actually hurts the people this is intended to help.
They're right, it's 2016 FFS, we should be referencing one of several half assed clones in node packages.
Even then they can probably nail you for something if they're so inclined.
Very good explanation of good opsec by you and bad opsec by the target!
Well, sure, but "whatever can be straightforwardly tacked on" is highly subjective, no?
Regarding the unfavorable rating - it's here to stay. IMO, US politics is so polarized at this point - the other side is always going to be viewed as deceptive and lying (as opposed to having a different viewpoint or an incompatible solution).

The only significant point here is that it's over 50%.
How would you positively describe an impending comet strike on the planet? Sometimes there are situations in which there is absolutely no positive benefit.
Specializing, I think, is a good thing. I'd long been beholden to the belief that "broken comb" (https://spin.atomicobject.com/2013/06/27/broken-comb-people/) could lead to a fulfilling career path, but I no longer believe this is the case. If you're middling at a bunch of things then you'll never be hired to greater than a middling position.

The only advantage of broken comb is that you potentially have lots of middling positions you can apply to. But even for those, you may be rejected as "overqualified" because you know so much other stuff. Besides, who wants to send lots of resumes and do lots of interviews in the pursuit of a middling job? Especially when you know you're way better than the people that you're competing against and losing to.

So, don't fan too far out. Find a concentration that's reasonably mainstream for the foreseeable future and expand your skillset to supplement that. Maybe not as renaissance-man as the typical above-average programmer would hope for, but likely the best career path.
The Low Energy Frontier of Particle Physics (2010)
Two reasons. First, these relationships are important to me in various ways. Second, because not acting means leaving or even encouraging the status quo. I'm willing to risk it because I trust the women that I have these platonic relationships with to not levy false accusations. So long as my judgment is accurate there's no material risk to me. And when it's not, I'll deal with it.
Subsidies have encouraged the renewable energy industry to explode and drop prices radically, and soon unsubsidized renewable energy will be cheaper than fossil fuel energy.
I don't think so, not too much anyway, I think the "software engineering" aspects of it would place reasonably strong constraints on what is desirable and on what is feasible (for a DFA). That's probably how the (informal?) consensus emerged.
OfferUp raises $119M for resale marketplace
If you really want to know, Marx had a thing to say about that. He viewed capitalism as the 'necessary evil' to get economic production to the point where socialism was possible.
Assuming that the parent doesn't care helps nobody, though. At least allow the parent to fail.
how many problems do we have now?
No, that's completely different. This is just trial division, with really slow division.
That wasn't PCRE. That was Perl. PCRE just copied the features that people liked in Perl, and made them available elsewhere.

The same features have also been implemented independently many times. For example Ruby, Java and Python all have independent implementations of regular expressions with a lot of the same features.
The Jio Network May Boost India’s Bitcoin Economy
For those who aren't aware, the Catholic Bishop Diego de Landa burnt almost the entire written history of the Maya in 1562.

http://www.historyofinformation.com/expanded.php?id=1896

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diego_de_Landa#Suppression_of_...
have regular expressions gone too far?
Werner Herzog on Why You’ll Never Find Him on Facebook or Twitter
How I read internal Uber emails and got paid $10,000
Keystone Kop Valuations: Lazard, Evercore and the TSLA/SCTY Deal
No, it is not.

You can invent a variety of notations to describe a DFA. But you can't change the formal definition of a DFA, or what kinds of things a DFA can match without making it not a DFA.
North Korea: Large quake detected close to nuclear test site
PCRE doesn't implement that "restricted type of algorithm", and I think that's what the parent is suggesting is wrong, not so much the difference between formal understanding vs informal, intuition of the same subject (I would argue that the latter would be sufficient, but few even have that).

Understanding REs (a little more) formally, one can exploit their properties for e.g. performance and/or concision. For an example of what that understanding gives you, I'd recommend checking out the Ragel state machine compiler.
I do, but pretty much just so people can't tell me I don't have a right to complain. I vote, but I don't see how it can possibly matter.
You choose to use the obvious case, but it would be just as true for the other one:

Yes, if you can sell a night's stay for the same price to a woman as you can to a man, it would seem wisest to board the woman at every opportunity.
Sure, but on the pragmatic hand, "regular" isn't super useful unless you're designing a language yourself. If you're parsing something, not understanding "regular" is going to hurt a lot less than attempting to use PCRE to do something it can't.
Mattermark Daily – Thursday, September 8th, 2016
I've also spoken to a lot of them, and the majority (of them) completely disagree with you.

Maybe both of our sets of women engineers involve some selection bias?

Regardless, I find this...

> Maybe you should talk to some women engineers sometime and get their opinion.

... and the implication that you have enough information to conclude that the parent simply _could not_ have already talked to women engineers - and the further implication that your assessment of the opinions of women engineers must necessarily be canonical - to be strangely arrogant, condescending, and unconstructive.
Genetic analysis uncovers four species of giraffe, not just one
People are saying this is due to HTTPS Everywhere (Chrome plugin)
What do you mean by "non trivial base?"
programming is already such an opaque concept before you learn it, kids entering the class won't even really know what programming is.

if you start with a single-minded focus on syntax, as most do, the kid's mental model of programming becomes "programming is done by entering premade code words that someone made up. if i want to do something, i need to find the premade code word that does that thing".

as opposed to, "programming is about blobs of information and what i do with them - changing their shape, organizing them, picking certain things from them, taking stuff away from them. if i want to solve a complicated problem, i won't start typing, i'll start thinking about how i'd make a machine that makes the blob i want. the best way to make a machine like that is usually out of smaller machines that live inside it. i'd figure out what the smallest machines i need are, and i'd make those, and then use those to make the bigger machines, until i'm done."

if kids were started with a functional, problem-solving oriented approach like that, you'd create very capable programmers much faster. this applies to introductory CS classes in college. i went into my first CS class knowing absolutely nothing about programming beyond CSS/HTML - i was a math / mech eng major at the time. i think it was the third class where they had us write a program in C that did some non-trivial dynamic allocation. they never told us things like what the heap or the stack are, or the concept of a memory leak, what happens if you dereference a null pointer, etc, etc. i never got that program to stop segfaulting. i came very close to failing that class and was told, because of that, i probably shouldn't continue with CS. i taught myself computer science instead and now i know that i'm not stupid or unsuited to programming - my introductory CS education was shit.
Not really. A graph is either a valid DFA or it is not. At that point, it's a matter of tooling in terms of "straightforward"ness.
I don't think climate change is comparable to an impending comet strike on the planet. If you argue that it is, I'm going to distrust you unless you can make a pretty compelling case about it.
This is too heavy for my computer.
> Does drinking coffee (black without sugar naturally) blow the supposedly positive effects of the fast?

I curious about this and the effect of zero calorie soft drinks.
Password is thumbprint.
I see this pattern a lot: trying to tiptoe around unknown, unsaid feelings and assumptions as if it were a minefield. In practice, it doesn't need to be a minefield.

There's a formula for this kind of thing, but polite professionalism is also a communication skill that needs practice. The formula goes like this: 1. State why you're about to ask for whatever it is. 2. Ask for it.

Assuming #1 definitively isn't "to get a date with this person," then it's really quite straightforward to handle the situation. If they imply that they think you're making some advance, you can literally say "No, wait, I think there's some misunderstanding, I'm not doing that, I'm literally just [repeat your reason for talking to her]." And then make some concession to demonstrate the point, such as "If this would make you more comfortable, we can discuss this out in the common area."

If it's a casual conversation without a strong agenda, you can also just say that. "I don't really have an agenda, but I want to get a sense for your communication style so that I know how to work with you."
Great detective work, well done! Like some others say I would have told the parents too. I've met scammers and some of these people will say anything to get away but then be scamming someone else the next day with a new account.
Yes, and not if you are a woman. Is this 'female privilege'?
I understand the value of life and that it's important to make sure everyone is safe in space missions, but this is an unmanned space organization and it would be RIDICULOUS if SpaceX was grounded for any period of time. They continue to push the boundaries and should be lauded for their accomplishments and less ridiculed for their mission failures. Just my brief opinion....
That's not really the argument he/she's making though. If the vote is won by only some small percentage, then everyone that voted in that election's vote mattered since by making the choice to not vote could have caused the other party to win. What that percentage is depends on a variety of factors, but is somewhat irrelevant to the point.

Their point is that if it were the case that California was a close race and that the electoral college is close such that Trump winning California allows Trump to win the election then it is important to vote for POTUS in California. However, those things aren't statistically independent, and it is incredibly unlikely to happen.
Max Factor 2000 Calorie Dramatic Volume Mascara Black, 9ml
It seems a little strange but you can import the propTypes of the wrapped component (argument to the HOC) into the wrapper and incorporate them into your type checking there.
Assuming a company the size of Apple has more than enough resources to develop decent software on any platform, I think it's fair to assume they willingly make subpar versions of their apps on what they consider to be "rival" OS, disingenuously trying to make the point that UX is better on MacOS/iOS.
I can hardly wait until the next president finally does something about these get-off-with-a-slap-on-the-wrist banks!

<crickets>
Of your three examples, I can think of many woman who wouldn't care about the first two at all. They throw around bitch, slut, whore without concern and they aren't having kids so they don't care about the maternity leave.

Those first two seem more like your personal preferences than something universally despised by women.
Well, not really. It's closer to trial division, though even that doesn't go through every single multiple from 1-n.

The difference is the sieve works on a large batch of numbers, and only tests divisibility with numbers not known to be composite, and less than sqrt(n).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_division
"regular language" is a mathematical term. You can add any features you want to your matcher, but some features allow you to match languages that are not "regular".

However, most programmers are not mathematicians or computer scientists, and so are effectively using lay terminology which is similar to but not precisely the same as the mathematical terminology. Most programmers only care that their regex library allows them to concisely match strings, not that it allows them to match regular languages.

Thus there are two standards you could follow: the precise mathematical definition of "regular", or the lay definition.
Share your Unix shell with people you trust
I connected carussell to the crussell maintaining some fork here: https://gitlab.com/crussell/amVim as pointed elsewhere.

It would certainly be possible that he contributed code to the project given that.
If you can compile any string in the language to a DFA then it's equivalent in power to regular expressions.
That'd be right - a 20 year old trick becomes Google's hottest new hiring roadblock/challenge...

newsgroup comp.lang.perl.misc, October 1997. Message-ID slrn64sudh.qp.abigail@betelgeuse.wayne.fnx.com

(I don't know if abigail "invented" that, but I remember discussing it on usenet when it appeared in her .sig back in the mid/late '90s...)
> the rhetoric of privilege is inseparable from personal attack

Is this a generational point of view? I don't think that the word "privilege" is "inseperable from personal attack. To me, this very much fits into the definition of a privilege as "a benefit enjoyed by a person, beyond the advantages of most". Access to and time to read a broad variety of news sources is very much a benefit enjoyed by some people, beyond the advantages of most. I don't see how there's any personal attack implicit in that...
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0cdoy7e8xh54wrx/tensorflow-0.10.0r...

Here is the pip3 wheel but I am skeptical given it was built for my system.
No, the people making the policy decisions need to be better informed. It doesn't much matter if you suffer them and don't have the time to go campaigning your grievances. The sword cuts on both sides: the poor don't have political power because they don't have the luxury needed to wield it, not because they are uninformed of the state of affairs.
If you can't convince me, a relatively rational person who firmly believes in anthropogenic climate change and the need to take action against it, to curtail my personal carbon emissions, then what hope do you have of making any difference through your example?

Imagine two more worlds: one where everybody but me thinks the way you do, and one where I think the way you do but everybody else thinks the way I do. My argument is that those worlds will also materially differ, but in this case the "good" one is the one where I don't do anything.

You need to show me that changing my own personal habits will somehow noticeably push the world toward one of the "good" ones. All you've offered so far is a bunch of wishful thinking about how if everybody thought this way, it would be better. It's true, but changing my habits doesn't do anything to change other people's minds.

It is a bit like war, except that we don't have an army. There's an implacable enemy out there, and there's no organized resistance. You're telling me that I ought to pick up a gun and go fight. I'm saying that this would be silly, I'll just be instantly killed by the enemy without making a dent in threat they pose. Instead of convincing individuals to individually grab guns and charge the enemy, we need to raise an army. We need to get everyone together and act collectively.

You don't raise an army by going around criticizing people for not fighting the enemy. You need to create an organization, you need hierarchy and structure and doctrine and funding and a mandate from people with power, and only then can you productively go around telling people they ought to join up to fight the enemy.
The very fact that he asked for his parents not to be told probably means telling them would make a difference.

Unless that was more scammer bait to distract from the original intent to tell the police.
A scientist's job is to study the world as it is. If a scientist decides that the information must be filtered to represent only one side so that I will reach the "right" conclusions, I will distrust what the scientist tells me, and look further to get the full picture.
You're making a straw man caricature out of the nativism detractors. Current researchers do not claim that first language is taught, that's why the field is called language acquisition regardless of whether one subscribes to nativism. The more nuanced non-nativist theories argue that grammar learning employs domain-general cognitive mechanisms, rather than language-specific innate grammar knowledge or principles. It's quite a stretch to connect any of this with political ideologies.
I like your: "<Startup x> is a high-speed re-enactment of how and why we developed regulations ...".
If you mean IntelliSense in VS Code, I just got this figured out today! The official docs will walk you through it[1]. Be careful about reading blogs about how to do it, the process has changed from when you used to use "tsd". You need to click the little green light bulb at the bottom right of the editor to create a jsconfig.json file. Then install the typings module with:
npm install -g typings

then install the language files you want. This will install node completion:
typings install dt~node --global

Much easier than before!

[1] https://code.visualstudio.com/docs/runtimes/nodejs#_great-co...
as someone who has had such partners (and thankfully do not now), let me assure you that it's a fairly common phenomena.

Also, for me at least, yes; it was a very unhealthy relationship/lifestyle. You're absolutely right about that.

edit: I didn't realize spouse implied only married-partner. I changed my wording on that. I always thought it just implied 'live-in partner'. (i'm not the marrying type, hah.)
perl -wle 'print "Prime" if (1 x shift) !~ /^1?$|^(11+?)\1+$/' [number]

(My first exposure to that was in '97 or so as a .sig from abigail in comp.lang.perl.misc)
Harbor – Container Registry Server Based on Docker Distribution
Hmmm.. What kind of comp? It's running fine on my little $200 chromebook
Eh but it existed for long before Atom and VS code. (disclaimer I paid the $70 and felt it was well worth the money at the time, these days yeah maybe I wouldn't but I still do find myself using it a lot)

Edit:
To expand, sublime is still by far my favorite TEXT editor. I just don't find doing everyday text editing tasks in VSCode to be pleasant at all, its an amazing IDE though!. Atom is much better for the task but the responsiveness and large file handling capabilities of sublime makes it the clear winner. If you already paid the $70 for a licence back when atom didn't exist anyways...
Not easy to read.
Er... I'm not sure what you're saying here, in that it doesn't seem to be engaging with what I was saying, or trying to say, so I'll clarify what I was saying. What I mean is, we all agree on what DFAs are, and so we all agree on what regular languages in the original, Kleene sense are. But once we start admitting non-regular languages into our notion of "regular expression" because they're "straightforwardly tacked on", it's unclear what the limits are supposed to be.

I'm not actually a fan of using "regular expressions" in a sense broader than that of Kleene's regular, DFA-accepted languages, to be clear. That is exactly what I've been questioning.
But isn't the employee still committing a felony, like some sort of fraud? Shouldn't they all go to jail, or at least pay large fines?
I'll say to you what I said above, but even moreso: Er... I'm not sure what you're saying here, so I'll clarify what I was saying. What I mean is, we all agree on what DFAs are, and so we all agree on what regular languages in the original, Kleene sense are. But once we start admitting non-regular languages into our notion of "regular expression" because they're "straightforwardly tacked on", it's unclear what the limits are supposed to be.

I'm not actually a fan of using "regular expressions" in a sense broader than that of Kleene's regular, DFA-accepted languages, to be clear. That is exactly what I've been questioning.