skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Forgot to mention: a key part of that question is the vagueness of the wording "significant contributing factor". "Significant" certainly includes "small but statistically significant" and also includes "a meaningful fraction (that still might be less than half)".

Part of the IPCC "consensus view" on climate is the notion that human activity is responsible for more than half of recent warming. Thus it's quite possible - even likely - for someone to be skeptical of the consensus view and still answer "yes" to question 2.

If question 2 were made more precise such that only people who agree with the consensus would answer yes, the level of agreement found - even among climatologists - would be much smaller even than 87%. (I'm guessing closer to 60%. Still probably a majority view in the field, still a "consensus", just not an overwhelming consensus.)
Was reminded of this by https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12528144.

Book website is here: http://pedrokroger.net/mfgan/ I read it some time ago and liked it.

I have no affiliation with the author :)
> 'but I'm starting to realize that you can't just be a spectator, you have to be a part of something bigger. Maybe by trying to solve a problem, investigating an issue and creating a documentary, or fighting for something important.'

That's so true. Once you are a part of something bigger, the experiences, adventure and thrill land up on their own. This applies not only to travel, but every part of life.
What illegal activities did the NSA perform here?

In case you didn't notice, the Snowden leaks revealed filters that removed US citizens' communications, showing that they were complying with US laws that prevent the US military (of which the NSA is part of) from spying on US citizens.

Why would the NSA have these compliance filters as part of a classified program if they were allegedly performing illegal activities?
> 9400 Representatives would make it a lot harder for lobbyist to sway the will of our elected officials.

Rather, it would be easier; the larger a body is, the less the body actually works in a flat egalitarian manner, and the more the work of the body gets done through formal or informal power structures created within the body; this is already a substantial difference between the Senate and the House when the latter has a bit over 4 times the size of the former, at 94 times the size it would be even a bigger distinction.

Lobbyists are experts at understanding and leveraging both the formal and informal power structures in governing bodies to focus efforts at influence.
Interesting, though it is a framework very similar to previous work using Box combinations. Here, we don't require any work from a language expert. We simply sniff your project, and then make new files look like those. Handling a new language requires no coding.
The quantity of propaganda will be so large that it will drown out all other content. This is already happening with CTR shills being paid to spam Twitter, Reddit, and 4chan with anti-Trump propaganda. What is this if not censorship via non-traditional means?

http://archive.is/IxsAt
Even Haskell needs an explicit language extension flag to make this happen (-XDataKinds I believe).

Consider this use case

data Pointer = NullPointer | NonNullPointer Int

And I want a function that only accepts non-null pointers:

dereference :: NonNullPointer -> a

To do that and maintain my Pointer type, I'd have to do something like:

data NonNullPointer = NonNullPointer_ Int

data Pointer = NullPointer | NonNullPointer NonNullPointer

-- ^ The namespace of constructors and types is distinct,
-- so this is fine and is a constructor of Pointer that
-- contains a NonNullPointer, which only
-- has one constructor, NonNullPointer_ (note the _)

I believe -XDataKinds does something like this behind the scenes, but someone better than I should verify. I just use the above technique rather than questionable language extensions.
Here's an e-book that has a similar approach to explaining music: http://pedrokroger.net/mfgan/ I read it some time ago and liked it. No affiliation with the author :)
For better or worse, the only way to guess if this notation can be sight-read, is for someone to train themselves to do it. And to make matters worse, learning to sight-read for adults is so hard that it's virtually prohibitive. Every musician I know who can sight-read fluently, learned it as a kid.

So it's virtually impossible to try out a new notation system.

But my impression is that this would be phenomenally hard to read, especially in a live performance situation where your attention is divided between the sheet music and other stuff. If I were staring at a solid grid of text, and were to glance away for a split second, I'd be lost. Part of sight-reading for me is being able to read ahead by a few notes or even a few bars.

It may also be that conventional notation displays a lot more density on a single page, because a 16th note takes up no more space than a whole note.
This is the WRONG QUESTION.

The real question is:

In what areas are (recently build in the internet era) NoSQL Databases beneficial over (barely-)Relational traditional RDBMS Databases (build decades ago)?

----

Scalability, the easy to mutate schemas and all that are artifacts of our times.

MySql, Sql Server, etc are barely relational databases, coupled with a almost-decent way to interface them (sql).

For example, in them you can't store a relation inside a field. Schema manipulation is hard. A lot of potential programming power is not possible, without convoluted recent additions the Sql language, or hacking together strings.

And most of them have been made for workloads and scenarios that are at odds to what internet-scale companies need.

Unfortunately the solutions was do "Nosql":

"Any sufficiently complicated database management system contains an ad hoc, informally-specified, bug-ridden, slow implementation of half of a good RDBMS."

---

Check the relational model. Is far simpler than people give credit, even without get too crazy like some purist want.

In fact, I don't see any reason why the relational model can't
be used as flexible how json is applied in the backend.

---

Despite all the above and more, a traditional RDBMS is solid enough that most people not need to get crazy and move to (full) NoSql. However, could be good to use them in specific cases (like caches, search engines, etc).

But I have experience people using NoSql stores and trying to do the kind of work a RDBMS have solved easier and faster.
I was inspired by Pinboard and its business model. Over the next few weeks I hope to introduce more features for power users (like IFTTT support).
Tech Giants Team Up to Improve Internet Security
1934 Nazi Time Capsule Opened
> his was published long before yours

That's not enough. What if someone publishes before the author. Say I buy something from other resource or even directly and publish it on the OP's.
> want to eject a disk? drag it to the trash can...?

This is the appendix of the Mac UI.

Gather round, kids, and listen to Grandpa tell you a story of the days when Macs had only one floppy disk drive. When you wanted to copy a file from one disk to another, you had to (physically) eject the first disk to insert the second one, but the first disk volume was still logically mounted so you could use it as a source or destination. So the volume's icon remained on the desktop, only dimmed so you knew the disk wasn't physically present.

So you physically eject a disk by selecting it and pressing Command-E (remember, only one mouse button), but how do you get rid of the ghost icon afterwards? Same way you get rid of anything -- you drag it to the trash.

From there it's an obvious shortcut to combining the two operations by dragging a "live" icon to the trash to both eject it and remove its icon in one step. (Well, obvious in 1985, anyway.)

Now that we can right-click the icon to eject the volume and have forgotten the origins of the drag-to-trash gesture, it may seem nonsensical, but those of us who were there at the beginning were grateful for the shortcut. (Also, get off my lawn.)
Tox[1] meets all of these points except for

- has single msg editing & deletion

And who cares about that? It is also:

- a distributed P2P network with no proprietary or centralized services
- no email requirement
- Linux support (advertising "cross-platform support" without Linux is a fucking joke)

It's not perfect but I think it's a far better place to invest our mindshare.

[1]: https://tox.chat/
That is exactly what I was thinking. Oracle can do pretty decent stuff with tech as far as I have seen, but their actual direction and choices seems to embody the crassly-disgusting money squeeze corporation so much that I really don't want to do business with them. I mean, they put crapware in the consumer JRE installer. How many dollars did they get for that, versus how much negative feeling from that alone? This seems like a corporation who owns their terrible reputation, and says, "who cares? we're still rich."
An interesting idea. Not sure anyone is working on that.
Downvotes for speaking the truth and adding to the discussion. Thanks guys.
I don't think Apple is afraid to follow the herd. They have long experience in following the herd and then telling everybody why they're the ones who finally did it right.
Thanks Andrew. I was just looking at the intro example on https://www.formingo.co/create-a-form and didn't dig deeper. I'm glad I asked. I'll give it a try.
> building homes in areas where there isn't adequate low-income housing.

Silicon Valley could also use some help here (tongue-in-cheek).
This is in spite of the fact that, semantically, both are exactly the same thing.

Semantics is not practice.

Rust is a compiled language. All Types/TypeClasses have to eventually be resolved down to concrete structures/tuples that can be statically or dynamically dispatched too, and in most cases allocated to the heap/stack.

Haskell is NOT a compiled language. It compiles to a bytecode that is ran by the RTS (Run Time System) a ball of ~50,000SLOC in C/C++. Haskell TypeClasses are MAGIC managed by the run-time. They are not resolved to actual machine code. A compiled Haskell program is just the bytecode+source code+compiler+RTS bundled into an ELF. Yes some Haskell is translated into pure C, but all of it can't be. The pure C Haskell still depends on the run time heavily. Especially for managing type class dynamic dispatch.
Check out Aerobatic [https://www.aerobatic.com]

Integrated with Bitbucket, git push deploy, Docker auto-builds of static generators, wildcard SSL custom domains, CDN, etc.

disclaimer: I work at Aerobatic
I am surprised that the article didn't once mention the lack of advertisements on Netflix. The are inherently selling a different product than television by not having ads
Article lacks images and indeed a quick look on the net yielded nothing noteworthy to back this up and all I saw were the usual bush sized ones. So somewhat curious if this the norm or just a few exceptions that got picked upon.

Also they say coffee but there are many types of coffee plant/bush/tree, so no idea what variation of plant. Also note a bush is just a small tree too many.
> I do want to visit Africa, but all of this driving and getting stuck doesn't really appeal to me. I do want to visit places like Ethiopia and South Africa, but I think I'll take a plane.

You're missing the point. It's the adventure, not the trail, not the road you'll chose or the destinations... It's the adversities on the trip, the people you meet, the broken cars, that bus/airplain/boat you didn't catch that will make the difference, a point vey well made by my favorite Cavafy poem[1].

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n3n2Ox4Yfk&list=RD1n3n2Ox4Y...
A lot factors into it, but yes -- essentially grids are sort of local.

The US has three grids: East, West, and Texas.

Folks ask why Texas has its own grid and we generally say "because Texas", but the real reason is just the way the grid grew in the early 20th century. Texas was isolated from the big industrial centers of the coasts and had abundant internal energy sources (coal and oil) so it just grew into its own grid and stayed that way.

Inside each grid the frequency is internally regulated. Each grid is out of sync with each other so power transfer between grids is limited. A tie between grids requires converting energy to DC and back into AC synchronized to the receiving grid. ERCOT has 5 of these ties and their capacity is a small percentage of the demand. Additionally, there's a few generators at the border of the grid than can operate on two different grids (one grid at a time). They choose where to operate depending on pricing.

Another problem to deal with is transmission capacity. If you have too much generation away from demand transmission gets congested. To deal with this we have nodal markets (http://www.ercot.com/content/wcm/training_courses/14/nodal10...).
Fascinating! Are there any studies that use the patch specifically for depression or even chronic fatigue like symptoms?
This is a very important point that a lot of charity givers miss -- what's the marginal value of your charitable contribution? By taking a construction job, you might just be displacing a local from their job.

https://www.effectivealtruism.org/ has some detailed analysis of how to best make an impact, depending on your interests and skill set.
Likewise, don't assume your local good laws aren't shitty everywhere else.
The next RustFest will be held in Kiev in spring 2017
The gotcha in all of this is that the brutal competition in the cloud means that there isn't the profit margin to pay for all of this glitz anymore in the business.
Our jump to a remote friendly team
Well the site this is on is after all "reason.com - free minds and free markets".
> looking for rockstar

For those who aren't into music that much, how about ninjas? :)
indeed it is, but in the scenario above, rationality wouldn't be the strongest part of most humans, me including.

All this topic is ridiculous and I hope that none of us would ever be facing anything similar. But if we would, this kind of rationalization would keep at least me sane afterwards... or so I think.
>You are wrong. The San Bernardino attacker's iPhone was an iPhone 5C, completely vulnerable to this NAND cloning attack.
reply

No one claimed it wasn't, no one was even talking about the secure enclave protected phones.

That doesn't mean that NAND mirroring is a forensically acceptable method, hence it "doesn't work".

Read the paper, and read the discussion.
Agreed. The direction we're trending is good, but isn't that entire range [4.99-5.75] considered "acidic"?
Sounds like an interesting challenge. Hit us up if you'd like to try out Beep's kit -- daniel at beepnetworks dot com.
> he should come to his day in court

It's not like it's a mystery what would happen if he did. Only tyrants make martyrs.
It seems irrelevant that, as of now, "any problem we care about" is sub-Turing-complete. We're still taking baby steps as a species and the relevant timelines in context of this thread are futuristic. Agreed?

The point is that to maximally insist that "we can't know anything", and/or, "we can know everything" are both equally unreasonable positions.

> Nowhere are we encountering the kind of radical, existential "we can't know anything and had better give up" uncertainty without which /u/mbrock seems to think we will all fall into political authoritarianism. He's been reading too many liberal philosophers of World War II, or maybe just watched that BBC thing "Dangerous Knowledge" and took it seriously.

S/he can address your concerns -- that was not my intent, but hopefully you agree that unreasonable insistence on maximalist positions inherently carries the danger of "political" authoritarianism.

Your practical position reminds of a purported exchange between Wittgenstein and Turing, per Hewitt [ref]. I am sympathetic to it. But reminder again that my initial comments here were in context of intelligent machines. In fact as I am writing this little note, I am entertaining the thought that a veritable intelligent machine may in fact review the 3 (methodological) constraints noted, and shrug it off as practically unimportant. Or it may become alarmed. :)

[edit/p.s. ref:http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/4302]
> As someone who got to use a PowerBook G4 (running 10.5.8) from time to time (in fact, I'm typing this very comment on it), I fail to see how their current UI is any more undiscoverable than the UI from 7 years ago.

Problem: You plug in an external monitor and for some reason it doesn't immediately display an images. What do you do?

In pre-el-Capitan, you open up the display settings pane and press the button marked "Detect Displays".

In El Capitan, you open up the display settings pane and note that the button is not there. Are you screwed? It appears so. So you run a google search and discover that if you hold down the option key, the button that had been there for maybe 16 years magically appears in an area of what previously appeared to be blank in the dialog.

I believe that's called the Indiana Jones UI pattern.[0]

So yes, the discoverability has gotten worse over the years. This is something that was visible and made invisible.

[0] http://youtu.be/xFntFdEGgws
I hope you mean "The BBC are good a regurgitating press releases"
Operating infrastructure costs what it costs, and it is a tiny fraction of what Amazon prices it at.

I make a lot of my income cutting peoples infrastructure costs by optimising their setups, and a lot of it involves moving people off AWS (I also move people onto AWS when they have needs that are actually best met there - there are lots of AWS services I love, but they are expensive) to save money. I can generally price my services at a few months worth of their savings.

Competing with AWS on price isn't the hard part. The challenge is the amount of people that either don't care, or think that AWS is cheap without having done realistic comparisons.

But for Oracle, those are exactly the type of customers they have built their entire business around selling to.
It should be, but there's the problem of demand. Somebody has to be motivated to do it, meaning that they are probably equally passionate about music and image analysis.

Also, a lot of the written stuff is handwritten, not typeset. So it's a subset of the handwriting recognition problem.

It's pretty bad for the bassist, since the bass part is usually the second to last part to be copied, meaning that the copyist was probably drunk. ;-)
Using VLC with command line to listen to my playlists works great for me
The Top 5 TED Talks About Project Management
Last year I was mugged away from Las Ramblas, guy ran up to me, pushed me from behind and got my phone while I was on the floor. I had my hand on the damn thing at the time too! This was on a busy street around 1am. So while perhaps not typical it does happen.

Bastard ran up £3k in premium rate calls by the time I got back to the hotel to cancel it. Luckily I was refunded for those!
> Haskell is NOT a compiled language

Yes it is

> It compiles to a bytecode that is ran by the RTS

Nope, it's compiled to machine code.

(We're talking about GHC here, of course)
Half the steel ever made has been produced in the last couple decades.

1913 production was ~60 million tons (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2892944/posts ).

2015 production was ~1500 million tons.
Drop the "rational" to avoid that baggage, and the argument is certainly valid.

It could be a winner takes all if it was a huge technical hurdle to move many x86-based systems to ARM and back. But it's likely never been easier, and a lot of software already works on x86 and ARM. Unless x86 can consistently perform better for less power consumption and price, there will be competition.
> So what you'll have to do is tell your teammates to not use nulls, and instead make proper use of option etc, and then you're back to avoiding NREs by conventions, not by the compiler helping you out. Am I incorrect in this?

You're not wrong, but I think you're being too rigid. Type safety isn't a yes or no, it's a sliding scale between mathematically-guaranteed correctness at compile time and unsafe user convention, and on that scale F# is definitely to the left of C# - although it's to the right of Haskell and dependently-typed langs - because while it doesn't provide full safety, it still make safe code easier to write (the famous "pit of success").

Sure, F# lets you write "null" instead of "None" if you want. But C# lets you write, e.g., "dynamic" - does that mean C# lacks static typing and "avoids MissingMemberExceptions by convention"? Of course not; you have to go out of your way to use dynamic, because the language provides you with static types and encourages you to use them. Likewise, F# provides you with the Option type and encourages you to use it - you have to go out of your way to use null in its stead.

A F# coworker that used null would be committing an obvious code review faux pas, much like a C# coworker that insisted on using dynamic duck typing instead of interfaces.

(Whereas "null" is generally not considered a code smell in C#... and note that it's entirely possible and not at all difficult to implement a safe Option type in C#! It's just neither idiomatic nor popular.)

Another example is casting. In weaker languages, casting is implicit and dangerously uncontrollable. C# does better: you must explicitly cast types, but it's up to you to make sure it's a safe cast. And F# goes a tiny bit further: you have separate operators for safe upcasts and unsafe downcasts, and using the former on an unsafe cast won't compile. It's not 100% safety, but it's still better.
> In the case of physical stores and offices, I would imagine that a check for opening hours or telephone number shouldn't be counted as a pageview -> conversion anyway — they already chose you i.e. converted. Maybe they're a returning customer or somebody who liked the email marketing you sent them.

As well, adding structured data to the page (with RDFa, JSONLD, or Microdata) makes it much easier for voice assistant apps to parse out the data people ask for.

> Google [...]

Schema.org started as a collaborative effort between Bing, Google, Yahoo, and then Yandex. Anyone with a parser can read structured data from an HTML page with RDFa or a JSONLD document.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schema.org
I had an internship some time ago with a Large Company, and the codebase I was working on was very enterprisey-Java. It was really painful in this regard: an huge number of different classes, many of which were alternatives to each other, and pretty much everything was applied via homebrewed dependency injection. I didn't know this sort of thing had a name, but I think "ravioli code" matches perfectly.

One of my first tasks was to make a minor change and after an hour or so I still had no idea where the code was that needed changing. I called my manager over and he spent about 40 minutes trying to find it. He did, eventually. The change I made then took about 10 minutes to write and test.

That's 110 minutes of intern time + 40 minutes of manager time for a 10 minute fix.
I've only ever been robbed in Italy, but I've been back a lot in the hope of meeting my robber again (he was Italian, he had dark hair, medium height, and was somewhat unshaven - anyone know him?).
Thank you for elaborating on my point. Very well said.
You really shouldn't call it “Apache <anything>” without the express approval of the Apache foundation. If you want to call it something other than “Modified Apache 2.0”, you'll have to come up with a new name.

Though what's interesting is that since the license text itself is not explicitly under any license, it's technically just under regular copyright.
> If Oracle thinks they can beat that, then more power to them but I'm not quite convinced.

Don't rule out the power of acquisitions (see: Firebase/Google, Parse/Facebook). Word on the street is that they're also throwing silly mounds of cash at cloud talent.
Question is incorrectly stated. What is a "duplicate"? Is "f" sufficient?