skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
That sounds awful.

There's a phenomenon that I wish I had a name for. Or even a good description of. It's when people imagine that your issue is just something they've experienced, even when the magnitude is very different. E.g., when people who have been sad at some point tell clinically depressed people that they should just cheer up. When they tell somebody with an anxiety disorder that they should calm down. Or, as with your sibling and CFS sufferers that they should just get a little exercise and it'll all be fine.

I can sort of forgive that in regular folk. But in doctors? It's shameful.
A friend of mine who's quite into philosophy once told me that a good number of philosophers did little but try to categorize things. Rather than draw meaningful insights, say, or squeeze every drop out of some experience, they'd simply say, here's nature, here's a grid I've drawn, let's see what falls into what square. Ok, good job; but what have you actually accomplished? (So my friend said.)

I don't know if this is true of the history of philosophy (or if it's a meaningful indictment of these philosophers), but I can't help but be reminded of it when I see strenuous efforts being made to bucket various phenomena, and human ones at that. What are we going to do with these categories? Not to put too fine a point on it, these things are complex. Any differentiating scheme simple enough will be insufficient to be the basis of any important decision, and any sophisticated enough won't be neat enough for us to be talking about it like this.

I say this as someone who spent more years than I'd care to admit obsessed with MBTI. Wow, look, there are all these different people with their strengths and weaknesses. I even get a cool framework—a stack—to aid me in psychoanalysis. And then of course you have Socionics, which shamelessly tries, using just sixteen categories, to produce a catalog of human interaction. I am not saying it isn't fun.

Actually, MBTI did help me in one way: by showing me how diverse humans are. In my most advanced, intelligent state, I'm still not going to get along with or be compelling to all of them. That was an important idea for me growing up, and still is.

But beyond that, and running the risk of sounding unsophisticated: who cares?
A couple of points:

- the study hasn't done "unbelievable damage", unless you're firmly in the camp that CFS must be organic.

- "severe abnormalities in immune and metabolic function" doesn't rule out psychosomatic causation (as the stress system also controls the immune system and mitochondria, for example).

- there is no "unique and consistent to ME/CFS sufferers" dysfunction, except perhaps in HPA axis (the main stress system) responsiveness (but even this is somewhat up for debate).

- Saying it is psychological is not "dismissing" it. From what I can tell (having suffered from it, and researched it), psychosomatic causation does seem the most plausible. The symptoms, abnormalities, triggers and cures match perfectly with what you would expect from exhaustion due to chronic stress.
HP outrages printer owners after blocking use of cheap ink cartridges
Nope, but they do last a long time compared to other drives. We have stuff that got retired after 10 years (still working, we just upgraded standards). LTO-7 is out, so you might start picking up deals on older models.
The Naviaux study hasn't been replicated yet, and in fact another recent study found completely different metabolic abnormalities. So it might just be random differences.
The question is not what Yahoo is killing but what they aren't killing. I'll be surprised if anything is left of Flickr in a few years given the success of competition.
"Avoid clickbait links with this one weird trick!"
Trading on non public information is pretty much legal now though, as long as you don't provide consideration to the tipper, right? (with the exception of any separate duty to keep confidential that you and Matt mention)
I have a hard time believing that people would sit and wait for death because the lights were out. If they had to walk 100 miles, till with their hands, garden with whatever fibrous, undomesticated vegetables the could find, and fertilize with night soil, they'd make it happen.
So that means it's fetching the content (or at least the HTML portion) of every eligible link? That seems like potentially a lot of network traffic for what it does. Find if you have a fast connection, I suppose.
In Cranes’ Shadow, Los Angeles Strains to See a Future with Less Sprawl
Tried installing Signal. It was asking for a bazillion permissions. I can use xprivacy and evade those but I dont understand why such a privacy concerned service needs so many permissions from users.
mostly curiosity: why a stack vm in particular? (is it because you then need to write the compiler for it?)
Could Computers Make Communism Work?
What you say is certainly true, but there is a large number of people who've managed to convince themselves you only get cancer if you've lived an unhealthy lifestyle. It never hurts to have headlines like this bubble to the top of the news heap.
Greed? It's not like the drug companies are writing the Government a $100 million dollar check (which, you realize, is a pittance to the US Government, who's budget is 3.8 TRILLION DOLLARS)

Yes, there are a lot of heavy, potentially onerous requirements to releasing a drug. Sometimes these requirements result in drugs taking a long time to be publicly available. But the goal of this process is public safety, not making a quick buck.
The evaluation version is free and it works forever. If the developers were not OK with that, they would put a time limit on it. Since they haven't, that means they're OK with it.
Should be Dr. Chan. She has an MD.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anthony-d-romero/the-return-of...

1 strategy is to pull the debtor into court repeatedly and hope they fail to show up once so they can be jailed for failing to appear.

Repeatedly missing work can also put the poor person in danger of losing their job as well.

Fake threats of jail or other impossible consequences aren't unheard of either.
Sounds like you need to get your own bread making machine to guarantee a fresh supply of always fresh bread, with the best smells and your own continually varying input into the recipe. Have half a dozen varieties of flour at home, mixing as per the mood takes you and enjoy such challenges as the perfect wholemeal loaf.

After a while doing your own breadmaking you will find the 'fresh' bread at the bakers to taste relatively stale and packed full of additives.

However, doing your own bread will take you away from interacting with the baker and his lovely assistants making their venture less profitable. If everyone baked their own bread then the bakery would have no customers. Maybe it is that 'please', 'thank-you' and smile that you get to experience at the bakers that is as much behind your love of bread as the bread itself.
I have to admit I was little worried about using Sublime because it was closed source and I had no idea how often it would phone home to say hello / record keystrokes, but I used it and was so impressed by how fast it was. It was an order of magnitude faster than Atom. I would set up a Samba share on a linux box, connect to it, and edit files. My linux box would be the server I would use and samba seemed to solve that ok. How is sshfs compared to Samba?
This device has a temperature-compensated oscillator, and I'm guessing you could never match its performance with a cheapo board like a Raspberry Pi.
I can't find the link now, but I read somewhere that it took YEARS after the Wright brothers had achieved first flight to get the attention of the world. People didn't see how transformative that thing could become, yet the proof of concept was there.

The truth is the opposite: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12433966

Wrights were actually very secretive and they were reluctant to publish anything before they got the patent. They were so adamant about the patent that they didn't do any public demonstration of flight for years until they were literally forced by competing claims. In those times people making claims for "heavier than air" flights were numerous and it was hard to take anyone seriously unless they do demonstration. They not only chose not to do so until they got patent but also did almost nothing to enhance their technology meanwhile. Their contribution except for first flight is very marginal and their rest of the lives are dominated by nothing but patent worries, bringing massive lawsuits on others and getting royalties. They also made a very generic patent claim essentially asserting that any system that produces lift is covered by it. This produced a lot of friction in bringing new innovations to market leaving USA significantly behind of Europe.

In addition to this, there were flight enthusiasts all over the world, and particularly in France. They were hang-glider enthusiasts at the time, as that was the cutting-edge flight technology. One of the famous hang-glider pilots died due to his belief that a hang-glider ought to be controlled by shifting one's body weight, which led to a fatal stall. This further convinced the Wright brothers that "the control problem" was the most important problem to focus on.

A lot of people wanted to fly.

This is all tangential to your point, though, and wasn't meant to take anything away from it.
OMG, memories... at once point in the pleistocene era, I was tasked with writing a manual for what was then Informix 4GL[1], and to get comfortable with the language, I spent a week writing a user forum app, with topics and message threads, messages stored as "blobs" in the SQL DB. Tried to get my co-workers in the pubs group to use it. They thought it was cute but all said hahaha no.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Informix-4GL -- I am flabbergasted to see 4GL is still in use 30 years on.
AT&T does something similar - 75% and 90%. I learned the hard way it can't be relied on to be timely!

I received a 75% warning on a Friday night from them, continued to use data (some streaming), and never got the 90% warning, until Monday morning when I received about 20 text messages saying I had used 90%, then 100%, resulting in the automatic purchase of 1 GB more, then 75%, 90%, etc. Even with their credit for the misunderstanding it still cost me > $150 for that lesson.
Sorry if I wasn't clear earlier but, as I mentioned in another reply, I included advertising as only one part of the equation. The other part, as you said, is the design/contents of the thing itself.

I don't think technology is evil. Nor do I think it should be banned. But I do think it is designed to maximize usage–even if it's to the detriment of the user or his/her friends & family.

Also, I would be careful about ascribing all technology addiction to mental health issues. I think that's a little unfair.
A basic game engine! I was exposed to so many concepts over time, building on a code base I understood from the ground up.
It was the first time my code (c++ no less!) felt completely deterministic, that I understood every piece of data down to the byte level, heap/stack/gpu locality at any point of execution, and especially the lifecycle and memory management.

If anyone is interested in creating an indie/hobby game engine, I'd recommend the following:

- game loop with independent render FPS and a constant simulation tick delta (otherwise it runs non-deterministic due to floating point)
- "entities, components, systems" architecture (ECS)
- data-driven content (load level and game object data from JSON or similar, and programmatically build your scene)
- basic event or messaging system

Honestly, I can't think of a field that covers as wide a range of CS topics at the depth I've seen in lower level game development.

If you focus on understanding and implementing the popular patterns and algorithms recommended by the indie community, its not the most daunting of projects. There's so much great information, and a few good books that break down and walk through a working implementation you can build on once you understand it from the ground up.
>he worst destruction, certainly, was inflicted between June and September of 2015 by the militants of the Islamic State, who first tortured and killed the eighty-one-year-old site director Khaled el-Assad before beheading him and hanging his body from a column. Then they set to work obliterating the ancient buildings amid accusations of paganism and idolatry.

Absolutely disgusting
Lately, HN down-votes seem to me have a very "boo boy" thing about them. There's nothing in the original comment that would warrant a down-vote.
I love Matt, but he actually made a (minor) mistake this time. He wrote in footnote 8:

Once the options reached the minimum possible price, there's no reason to keep a short position open -- you can only lose money. So of course Omega should have bought in the position, regardless of whether it had good or bad or no news.

That's wrong. The options had an actual price. Granted, it was a low price, Cooperman bought them back at an average of $0.07, having sold for $1.32.

But it was still a bid. The majority of options actually expire worthless. I.e. the "minimum possible price" is actually $0.00. This is often reported as "no bid" well before expiration.

So it's wrong to say that Cooperman "can only lose money". He could have actually made an extra $0.07 per option had he not bought them back and potentially allowed them to expire worthless.
The headline misled me. The gist of the article is good.

Two of the article's main points are solid:

(1) On your resume and in interviews, talk about results more than technology. Instead of "I know Python" or even "I've used Python for five years," it's stronger to say, "I rewrote the company billing system, used by 100 people, saving $100,000 in licenses." Have bullet points like that on your resume. This advice first came to me from a book on making resumes, given to me by a friend who works as a recruiter. It's okay to mix in technical, of course. A good example is actually this Hacker News comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8902739

(2) Don't neglect the human factor. Basically it boils down to trust. Put yourself in the employer's shoes for just a second. Hiring a new employee is a significant act of trust. It should come as no surprise. Have you ever said to yourself at work, "Wow, I really can see everything. I could really do a lot of damage, if I weren't such an upstanding citizen." Exactly. The problem I guess is that most people don't have the time and money to check you out as well as they should. So they resort to all manner of shortcuts, like: are you well-dressed, are you clean, are you polite --- or do you come across as someone building a bomb in their basement, or someone who might build a bomb at my company if I don't buy you the right monitors? Other shortcuts are prevalent, like: are you a friend or relative of someone I already trust?

Yes, this is all embarrassingly low-resolution instrumentation for indentifying a good employee. However, can you think of anything better? Maybe you can. If so, there's loads of money to be made. Just try not to make it scary, like trying to algorithmically score a person based on key words in their opus of tweets.
Even if it is an illness of the brain (and it might well be), it should still be treated seriously, like many other similarly serious illnesses of the brain. Schizophrenia is an illness of the brain too, but no one says "It's all in your head, just get over it" to the afflicted.
Yet another half-assed job by Yahoo. The way I saw it, there was potential in becoming a realtime marketplace for photos of events. With the right interface, you could let a user who happens to capture a newsworthy event to sell his/her photos for good $$, and Yahoo collects a nice chunk of it.
I signed up with a Verizon Wireless data plan a few days before the close of 2015 after moving to a new place. Initially paranoid about data usage and Verizon's integrity in reporting such, I maintained activity logs on all my machines with vnstat (0). But I became more at ease after a few months when I determined that Verizon's reported usage always stayed slightly below vnstat's report for each network interface (which also includes network traffic that only takes place on the LAN or with the router device itself that isn't actually sent over the airwaves).

I won't suggest the article's complaints are baseless, however, even if the article itself reflects the poor community journalism I remember expecting from the Post-Standard. Because even if Verizon isn't falsifying usage data for users, the whole game is partly rigged! A typical user has no idea what their actual usage is, or what their devices do automagically in their absence. I've seen 10 GB prepaid cell data allowances get liquidated the very evening of the day they were topped off by project volunteers using laptops. In one case, a user checking and writing email forgot to disable Windows Updates. In another instance, the user had no concept of how large the neat videos he uploaded to the project's FB page actually were. Without a real concept of how much data they actually use, most users will end up finding a data plan mostly by trial & error--they will go as cheap as they can, and incrementally adjust to a larger plan when they "go over" (rinse & repeat). I think of the numerous uncomfortable talks and arguments in households everywhere based on stupid ideas of what constitutes data use, and parents who are no better informed than their children about what they can do to actually reduce household data usage.

And yes, turning off automatic updates, "wifi assist", and other settings is good advice. Except that many of these settings have a mysterious way of getting re-enabled in commercial OSes. Why is it necessary for users to constantly police their own device settings because the Apples, Microsofts, and Googles of the world have other ideas? If you're running a non-libre OS (which is unavoidable on smart phones, presently), you might as well expect some hardship here. Your device does what it wants, because its makers don't think it actually belongs to you.

I suspect that the main reason my experience with Verizon Wireless has been nearly painless (if not inexpensive) is because I keep only a dumb phone and several machines installed with Slackware. My data usage may be larger some months, but I always know why! It's never a surprise.

0: http://humdi.net/vnstat/
Interesting perspective. One thing that doesn't get brought up here is that Omega Partners does seem to have a particularly aggressive culture when it comes to gathering information. Just my perspective interacting with them..

I wonder how much of it stems from Cooperman himself.
> unless you're firmly in the camp that CFS must be organic.

What does "organic" mean in this context? Given that it's an affliction of humans, I don't really understand how it could be non-organic.
Amazon API Gateway introduces 3 new features to simplify API configuration
They're just normal guys, who are quite approachable - go to the right conferences and you'll meet them.
Barriers to Stack Overflow Use
Sorry for the delay. A Jazzercise class suddenly appeared in the coworking space I work out of, so I fled, and then I had to give a talk about Starfighter.

Responses: (when I say "your" let's just stipulate I mean Facebook)

* Your password validation overhead is .1% of current front end resources, but could be ratcheted up, and would be easier to ratchet up if they weren't shared by other things.

* I totally understand why you keep the old MD5 cruft around --- but would add that it's cruft that would be even less obvious if it lived behind an authentication server.

* I think it's safer, simpler, cleaner, probably easier to scale, and definitely easier to change authentication if it lives in its own service rather than being implemented (in part) on a generic application server. As usage shifts from HTML front-end to all API, you might even be able to keep app servers from even seeing passwords.

* By "assessed", I mean, worked on other people's systems at this scale.

So I guess I'd wrap up with a question: if you had this to do over again, from scratch, the way you wanted to, would you have app servers do a password hash and then entangle it somehow with an HMAC operation from a crypto service, or would you have the whole password hash done on the crypto service directly?
Everything is made from smaller components. Understand each of those components better and you'll understand the entire system better.

Sometimes, you can use end-errors to tell which component has the issue. For instance, if a web site gives a 502 error, the problem is likely with the load balancer or lower network stack on the web server. 404 would often be a file system level issue on the web server. 500 is frequently a network issue between web server and database server. 400 is a problem with the site presentation code, or maybe database malforming addresses.
Government 'greed' may not be the best way to put it, but there is something there. This extremely high barrier to entry may not be completely necessary, and in some cases may be interpreted as deliberate suppression of competition effected by vested interests in the pharmaceutical and healthcare industries. If such a product can be proven safe using the same active ingredient and a comparable delivery mechanism, it shouldn't require millions of dollars to be approved.
Because if you're familiar with conventional real register architectures, the stack VM forces you to rethink it, in a much simpler way. It's a useful simplifying abstraction.
Getting Started with YouTube Heroes
> Why aren't there reactive operating systems (as in OS with reactive API)

This is something that's been interesting me lately. I've been working with the excellent futures and tokio libraries, and I've wondered what would it be like if that was the primitive for all OS interactions?

Basically, imagine a message passing system like Mach, but where the fundamental messages are all futures based. There might be some interesting things possible without holding locks in the kernel.
> Still, I would have zero capabilities to make my own.

That's the point, you don't have much capability to alter the OS you are running. But you should. It's not unachievable but the languages, tools and OS (and maybe HW) have to come together to allow for this.

> Move that to other areas.

Computer is different from any of those since it's fundamentally a machine to model human mind. I always feel like my OS is somewhat restrictive as to what it lets me to do easily and what alterations it lets me to make.

> Now. Do I want to be able to fix what I can? Of course. I run emacs, in part because I like that I can pull up the source, quite easily, of any component I am using. I still rely majority on code written by others. And have no shame or concern in doing so.

Right. But the languages and tools that we use currently don't lend themselves to terseness and correctness. I think that that's the direction of future languages.
I didn't think of lexer rules as regular expressions but I suppose they are of course.

But I can't imagine a lexer would ever be the performance bottleneck in a compiler.