skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Same for all politicos.

OK, so why are such articles only written for hillary? Why are you so adamantly opposed to Hillary's practices when it is so incredibly common. How much of all this is about corruption and how much is it about bullying females?
Like any radical shift in technique, it's best to try on a small project. It takes a while to get the hang of it. I'll answer your questions...

- It is really seldom that a patch is reverted (that a patch is removed). As in, it only happens in exceptional cases, when someone has made an obviously toxic patch by accident on on purpose. It's far easier to move forwards with improvements to the patch. We encourage people to do this rather than provide opinions on the code in writing. What this does is interesting: it brings others in the project into the work, and creates instant mentor-mentee hookups. We see this really often and it is a wonderful thing. You make a patch, it's merged, someone sends a patch on your patch and explains why, and suddenly you have someone in the project who knows that area and can teach you.

- Large sweeping changes are sometimes the simplest way to e.g. refactor some code. It's usually a Really Bad Idea to make functional changes at the same time. It also depends a lot on the language. I'd disrecommend large sweeping changes to a C project, absolutely. The risk of introducing multiple bugs is just too high. In a scripted language, far less risk, and so it's safer. In general, functional changes appear to work better as many small testable steps, and refactoring can work as a single mass change.

- OM scales really well. It needs 2+ people in the project. After that, the limits are elsewhere. Projects with hundreds of contributors are probably too large in terms of internal structure. It means you get ad-hoc pseudo-projects inside a single repository which means poor internal contracts, etc. I'd say a project with more than 7-10 active contributors at any time is getting too large. IME a network of small projects works far better than larger monolithic projects.

- I use OM (the C4 protocol) on all projects, whether they are just starting (my first act is then to call for co-maintainers), or have been around for ages (like the libzmq C++ core library, with hundreds of contributors). We've never seen an issue of scale.

Cheers!
I think it's a bad example because this should not be the way to develop in this kind (microservices) of systems.

In these environments you atomically create objects in your application's "local" storage and have a reconciliation loop for creating objects in other services or deleting these orphan "local" objects.
Good article.

I've stopped using bank transfers as an example for Acid transactions, and instead talk about social features:

- if I change a privacy setting in Facebook or remove access to a user, these changes should be atomic and durable

- transactions offer a good semantic of which to make these changes. They can be staged in queries, but nothing is successful until after a commit.

- without transactions durability is hard to offer. You would essentially need to make each query flush to disk, rather tha each transaction. Much more expensive.
I think it's a good example because this should not be the way to develop this kind of system - and yet people do it this way! :)
Mental health diagnoses are mostly based on vague symptoms that could described a number of "disorders" and are all firmly based in the values of the patient's society. Psychiatry is more or less a pseudo-science [1].

I don't mean to imply that unhinged delusions should be entertained, or for the deluded to be received as enlightened as this article seems to suggest. I do think we need a least a modicum of empiricism in psychiatry before the field can be taken seriously.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversy_surrounding_psyc...
What a bunch of blown up garbage. I don't trust The Verge on anything Apple related anymore.
I upvote you because I too dont get why people take the view that money is not important. I go to work for the money; not because I like hanging out with a bunch of random people for 9+ hours a day.
I believe Event Sourcing opens a whole other can of worms which would detract from the point of the article, such as whether the event streams have a well-defined order (especially if each account is its own aggregate), or whether the resulting event should be "Transaction Completed" (assumes pre-conditions were checked) or "Transaction Attempted" (checks pre-conditions before altering state).
Baltic Sea States Aghast at Russian Exclave's Sewage Dumping (2015)
Interesting article, but it's really talking about ATM networks rather than the broader "banks". A bank's core systems could still hugely benefit from having an ACID compliant database even if any individual ATM node could still be allowed to operate independent for some amount of time to maximize availability.

Consistency is a feature whose importance is regularly downplayed by hawkers of NoSQL databases. I've seen firsthand what happens when a NoSQL database scales out and it's not pretty — a significant number of people end up spending a significant amount of their time trying to figure out how to maintain data integrity across failures in the system, even the kind of minor failures that are occurring every day. A lot of the time that involves going in and cleaning up data by hand. There is no general solution for this problem, and it'll be a persistent operational tax that dogs you as long as your NoSQL database stays in use.
Transactions can have different isolation levels. And sometimes the problem at hand can be implemented using transactions with weak isolation levels which are not that hard to implement using your favorite NoSQL database that support CAS operation. I recommend this article: http://rystsov.info/2012/09/01/cas.html
I'm not actually that familiar with event sourcing. I'd be interested in reading more if you have a pointer to some resources!

Edit: I wasn't familiar with the terminology, but it sounds like what I have written about here: http://kevinmahoney.co.uk/articles/immutable-data/
Yeah, but watching Youtube and Netflix to pass the time while potatoes are automatically sorted does.
The AI Lab was commonly nicknamed Switzerland, as it was a neutral party between MIT's CS laboratories after they split into two.
I did look, I didn't find it. Thanks for the link, though.

They still should have published the code...
Because Hillary Clinton:

A) Is running for President
B) Is married to an ex-President, and the most influential man in the world.
C) Has a $500M slush-fund into which money from nefarious places is being invested - and it's not controlled by campaign spending laws.
D) Money was given to her from individuals (more than 50% of them) that she was dealing with as Sec of State - which is a massive conflict of interest on it's own, and she did give many favours that we know about, and it's just the top of the iceberg.
E) She was brought up in the article.
F) Is probably the highest paid circuit speaker in the world, or was, up until recently.

None of the above is true for anyone else.

That's why.

As far are your 'picking on women' bit ... oh please, this kind of argument makes my skin crawl. Corruption can't hide behind panties, at least outside of campus 'safe zones' where the facts don't matter. 'But she's a girl' is not an argument.
Agreed on most things you said, but: Being an atheist implies a religious belief.

If I get this right, you're saying that's how religious people perceive atheists; on terms of believing, they just don't. Which is wrong, e.g I as an atheist refuse to believe, I solely rely on facts and proof.

Back on topic:
Being an atheist implies a religious belief. It does not imply anything about how you view or judge other people, especially not about how you view or judge their actions.

Let's agree for a moment that it does not imply anything about how you view or judge other people, but as I said in another comment it should be easier for an atheist to not judge a refugee by his religion; his mind is free of all that.
you're not getting what i'm saying. it doesn't matter how old the gear you're working on is. if you're typing in long strings by hand, you're not thinking hard enough about how to do your job.
Gatsby is really superficial, uncompelling, flat. I picked it up because it's referenced so much in USA media as being the book kids read at high-school.

Personally I don't think anyone would be missing out by not reading it. It's just a weirdly written snapshot of life that's presented in such a tedious and uninspiring way ... what do you like about it?

One of the worst books I've read.
Yes, be aware of the transactional capabilities of your database. Some ACID databases in their default configuration don't provide all transactional guarantees!
* how is this different than deploying your own (micro)services on different hosts where you control the code?

* if you don't control the service running the web task, how do you trust the returned result to be the actual execution of the code you submitted?
I wonder why, since Valve's way of working is very different from the way big companies traditionally work
https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/EU_investing
No, I'm not entirely being facetious. Just a little bit :-).

Well money and success aren't guaranteed, graditude and a better community around your games is.
How should ZeroMQ replace TCP? Internet runs on TCP/IP (last time I checked). In private networks many problems of public networks don't appear. I'm aware that organisations use it for their internal systems. As soon as one bridges to the outside world, one is going to hit with a problem.
How to run Android apps on your Chromebook
Licensing is hard. Open Sourcing is easier. Although codebase sanitation is still a massive issue.

>For modding specifically, that also dictates how your game is built and requires extra work to do it right.

That's not actually true. If opensource the engine code, then people can probably figure out a way. Heck, if they're dedicated enough, they'll do it even if you don't opensource the engine. See Minecraft.
They wrote a paper about it for Usenix, at https://mosh.org/mosh-paper.pdf .

In general, it's always possible to put your own reliability layer on top of UDP. Other protocols do it too. g, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stream_Control_Transmission_Pr...
That's a fair point. However, they could still opensource their engine, which would provide them with some pretty major benefits: How likely is it that Doom would still have an active community if it only ran on DOS, with no improvements?
The combination of "I am REALLY bad at algorithm problems and experience serious performance anxiety." and "My current target is a role at one of the "big four" tech companies " seems to be at the root of your troubles. The 'big four' interview processes are heavily focused (for better or worse) on whiteboard algorithmic problem solving. You should change one factor or the other to make progress.

My 2 cents.
>If you can't climb someone else's ladder, build your own.

Seconding this, this doesn't just work in programming.
> As you use more generics in a statically typed language, you're sacrificing safety

Actually, in languages like Haskell, the more generic your type, the more "safe" you can expect it to be.

As an example, consider a function that gives you the first element of the tuple you pass to it.

The most generic type of this function is

fst :: (a,b) -> a

However, it can also have the type

fst1 :: (Int, Int) -> Int

Now, you can be sure of the behaviour of fst immediately by looking at its type, but that doesn't hold for fst1

Pretty much the only definition of fst that the compiler will accept is

fst (x,y) = x

However, the compiler will accept all the following definitions of fst1

fst1 (x,y) = x+y
fst1 (x,y) = x*y
fst1 (x,y) = 2^x
fst1 (x,y) = 7
...
مشاهدة قناة اون سبورت الجديدة ON Sport HD بث مباشر
Ask HN: Anyone already using the new GitHub Projects feature? Care to share?
If a decent B.Sc. degree in CS and 1-2 years of real-life experience would be enough to land a job at the "big four" than 99% of academics would work for the "big four".

In my country it is really hard to get a decent job without an M.Sc. I know a lot of people with two M.Sc.s in their pocket (this means at least 1 B.Sc. + 2 M.Sc = 7 years of academic education, like myself) speaking 1-2 foreign languages and having 6+ years of real life experience at the age of 30. And some of them would like to work for the "big four", and maybe in your country. Whether you like it or not you compete with them.

[edit] One of my friends who is IMHO a genius got a job at Google in Zurich and he had a hard time at the beginning.
Firebase is perfect for this. A lot of the big hackathons have been won using Firebase as it is so quick to set up and get started. But it is solid for production use as well.

http://firebase.google.com
Agreed. I've had access to a few of their courses, they're pretty awesome.

I know it sucks for people with disabilities and Berkeley should invest into making it accessible to everyone, but it would be a loss for everyone if the consequence of this is that their courses become entirely unavailable :(.
When you say "self identify", do you mean you settled on this state without medical professionals diagnosing you? If so, why, and why not pursue a diagnosis?

Serious questions and genuine interest, not trying to be an ass.
Amen. Whether or not the article's example is a good one, in a world without consistency you need to worry about state between _any_ two database operations in the system, so there's nearly unlimited opportunity for this class of error in almost any application found in the real world.

The truly nefarious aspect of NoSQL stores is that the problems that arise from giving up ACID often aren't obvious until your new product is actually in production and failures that you didn't plan for start to appear.

Once you're running a NoSQL system of considerable size, you're going to have a sizable number of engineers who are spending significant amounts of their time thinking about and repairing data integrity problems that arise from even minor failures that are happening every single day. There is really no general fix for this; it's going to be a persistent operational tax that stays with your company as long as the NoSQL store does.

The same isn't true for an ACID database. You may eventually run into scaling bottle necks (although not nearly as soon as most people think), transactions are darn close to magic in how much default resilience they give to your system. If an unexpected failure occurs, you can roll back the transaction that you're running in, and in almost 100% of cases this turns out to be a "good enough" solution, leaving your application state sane and data integrity sound.

In the long run, ACID databases pay dividends in allowing an engineering team to stay focused on building new features instead of getting lost in the weeds of never ending daily operational work. NoSQL stores on the other hand are more akin to an unpaid credit card bill, with unpaid interest continuing to compound month after month.
A really nice read. Thank you for your effort.

In the "Runtime Search Path: Security" section, there's:

LD_LIBRARY_PATH=. ./main

But the library is in ./libs in that example.
Creating and Maintaining a Security Operations Center (SOC)
ZeroMQ is hardly dominant. It's a small player in a huge market and there was and is space for many more projects in this area. I'm glad nano seems healthy again, yet it's not enough, and I'll explain why.

In the end the whole point of ZeroMQ was to build new protocols and APIs for decentralized messaging. My real disappointment with nano was that it made zero effort to build on existing work (mainly, ZMTP) and instead just started again, as if thousands of people hadn't spent years figuring out what a decentralized messaging protocol might look like.

It was worse than that, in fact. Nano launched itself on a wave of negativity. It makes good press, and poor everything else. Such hate for one's own history and knowledge base isn't healthy. If a messaging product isn't aiming at interoperability as a primary goal, it is worthless.

I'm not a fan of the "IETF or bust" approach either. That just doesn't work if you're a decentralized community. We needed and still need lightweight processes for RFC development. We use such a process (Digistan's COSS) in our RFCs. It wasn't random. I built Digistan and COSS over years after seeing AMQP swallowed up and destroyed by a committee. Why isn't nano using a process like COSS?

Without interoperable protocols, all we have is a bunch of software projects. And they die. And then all this is for nothing and the proprietary systems will rule the world and our dreams of making distributed software cheap again will die as well.

And this makes me angry: nano had the chance to push this forwards, and threw it away like old trash. What a stupid, petty waste of opportunity and goodwill.
I think it was interesting his comment about how he really isn't working like a CEO: "Yeah. I think a lot of people think I'm kind of a business person or something, which is fine. Business is fine. But really it's like at SpaceX, Gwynne Shotwell is Chief Operating Officer. She manages legal, finance, sales, and general business activity. And then my time is almost entirely with the engineering team, working on improving the Falcon 9 and our Dragon spacecraft and developing the Mars Colonial architecture."

This seems very similar to Steve Jobs who said he became CEO so that nobody could tell him what he could or couldn't work on. But like Elon Musk he seemed most interested in creating things and not really running the business.

I think this is a clue to successful business. If you got leaders like that you retain focus on good products rather than getting caught up in optimizing financials without a strong focus on actually building quality stuff people want or need.
I just tried it out a bit some feedback.

- I selected objective-c but got C++, not the worst thing but still.

- It would be nice to have a warmup to read the instructions, reading something 'technical' like this is kinda hard when you've got a stranger looking at you in the webcam, waiting.
So many patents involved in implementing x86 efficiently, that Intel have no interest in sharing at prices that would make this make any sense.
> (there is no direct link between the stick/yoke and the flight surfaces)

Almost true and oft-repeated. There are still means to somewhat control most FBW aircraft in the unlikely event all electrical control is lost; A320 can pitch/yaw with mechanical linkage to stabilizer trim and the rudder, for example (but, to your point, neither involve the sidestick). The flight is very likely headed for an unpleasant end but the intent is to buy time to restore computer control. Landing with trim, rudder, and differential thrust alone is possible (some have landed with less), but it's a big ask for a pilot accustomed to automation.

That scenario aside, when a whole lot of things fail an Airbus can also go into a mode called Direct Law, which basically tells the computer to take a hike and puts the pilot in direct control of surfaces proportional to airspeed (and puts structural integrity in jeopardy, because the computer isn't helping to obey design limits). The aircraft is extremely sensitive in this configuration.

(If you saw Sully recently, one of the reasons he quickly started the APU was to prevent the aircraft from leaving the relative safety of Normal Law in the absence of electrical power. This was described in the report, if I recall, and was one of the more critical decisions made.)

Boeing is entirely different in FBW philosophy from Airbus. A coarse summary might be that Airbus drivers are negotiating with a computer while Boeing drivers are generally flying the airplane. Both have merits and drawbacks and vocal camps.
This is so cool that it almost (but not quite) makes me wish I lived on the west coast.

But coming from the east coast, the west coast is weird.
The very best thing anyone with any mental illness can do in western society is to ensure that medical professionals do not find out about it. Three months ago I had suicidal thoughts, and even after they had subsided and I came home to rest and recuperate I was literally forced to get out of bed (I had been dozing) from where my loving family wanted me to remain, and was forced into a small, filthy locked room in the ED ward of Liverpool hospital.

I had been awake for over 14 hours. I desperately needed sleep. Instead, I was stuck in a hospital with almost no contact with any staff member (except the occasional nurse or doctor that checked my vitals) for the next five and a half hours. Thank goodness my friend Andy arrived 15 minutes after I was in that locked room, I would have gone barmy - there was literally nothing to do, I was tired but had bright lights constantly shone upon me and I was extremely stressed that I was being held against my will, even though I wasn't in any danger of harming myself or anyone else.

In Australia, at least in NSW, a drug dealer growing Cannabis or producing meth in a drug house gets more rights than a mentally ill person: under the Crimes Act, the police must get a warrant from a magistrate before they can enter a drug house. But if you are deemed by an ambulance officer to be in danger of harming yourself then the police can enter into your house with no warrant and forcibly take you into the nearest mental health facility - even if you aren't unwell! If that happens, then they can make you wait there for up to 12 hours before you are allowed to go home. And there is nothing you can do about it.
>I'm actually uncomfortable with you collating/ summarizing this data such as you have //

I hesitated, the BBC page will be an ocean of views compared to the puddle of view this thread gets ... I didn't follow the details for other posts, concerning crimes. The cited post looks like it was probably to hide what's essentially normal student behaviours (though one can't be sure). At least there's nothing intrinsic that seems worthy of censoring.

What it does shine a light on for me is how very bland information about us that we share might become a source of regret later in life.
We use the LGPL license with a clause that makes it harmless. The MPLv2 license is not an issue. All complaints from businesses about licensing come straight to me, as they have for years. MPLv2 raises zero complaints.

ZeroMQ "memory leaks and timeouts" wasn't the issue. Do you have a reference for that?

Salt's issues with ZMTP were performance; they wanted to multicast securely, and ZMTP does not support that. I'd complain once again that making their own custom protocol (actually, it seems to be largely just CurveCP) rather than working with us to extend ZMTP was poor form. Also, Salt wanted a pure Python stack.
If the key is encrypted, then it doesn't exist as long as the password is good enough to resist a bruteforce.

But password requirements in this case are definitely higher. You can restrict login attempts in the remote ssh machine, but you can't restrict bruteforcing of stolen encrypted key.
In the case of top politicians, it does look very much like a convenient legal way to pay them bribes and/or rewards for "good work".

This article does not really dispel that impression but rather strengthens it. It protests too much. Besides, there is a big difference between $225K for them and the $50K for the merely famous. Whereas $50K might well be the market rate for really inspirational and famous speakers, the additional $175K is for what exactly?