skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
looking for biologics in plants is really nothing new. Done intelligently, you're exploiting 4.5 billion years worth of pre-optimization. Done poorly, you're selling herbal supplement snake oil with no oversight or meaningful regulation.

The last big hit was about a half-century ago, too, so it's no magic bullet. [1,2]
>natural products aren’t dead, by any means. But they aren’t an untouched gold mine, either.

You'll get interesting hits, but the overall success rate for developing a reasonable drug out of them is still about 2% overall.

Sometimes (see: tramadol[0]), you can also confuse reuptake with production, and wind up concluding the wrong thing.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tramadol#Pin_cushion_tree
[1]: http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2016/04/19/gri...
[2]: http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2008/01/04/pla...
Any abstraction can be taken too far, but I think templates tend to be particularly attractive because it is both mentally challenging and can easily produce huge volumes of code. It makes those who enjoy overcomplicating things feel productive. The same can be said of things like design patterns and "OOP extremism", but templates give that extra flair of "expertise".

On the other hand, I'm the exact opposite. I hate overly complex solutions to intrinsically simple problems. I use abstractions sparingly and only when they reduce overall, not just local complexity. Sometimes moving down a level of abstraction or two will yield a better solution. Write simple code. Focus on programming and solving the problem, not metaprogramming and the metaproblem. If you're spending weeks to write (and debug!) a huge "generic solution" spanning a dozen files and several thousand lines of code which someone else could do in an hour with a few dozen lines of code in one file, I don't think that's being clever at all. I've personally experienced this, being that "someone else".

The C++ purists will probably find this repulsive, but in some cases a macro will be the far simpler solution. What templates can do are not a strict superset of what the preprocessor can do.

"All problems in computer science can be solved by another level of indirection, except those caused by too many levels of indirection."
>I was referring to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle

Now I see.. I only took a few physics courses and mostly associate his name when using the inequality, i.e what I think of when I read "uncertainty principle" (also, doing time-frequency signal processing/analysis). I was thrown off by the expression "quantum observation" because I thought you were talking about the observer effect, something that didn't really make me think of him.

Maybe we can chalk it up to cultural differences, but we've never called it like that here (it was always "Heisenberg's uncertainty principle").

>the quotes in the link suggest to me that he has spent a large amount of time pondering ethics, unseen causality, and attributed intent. That is what I meant by seeking perspective.

Indeed. I also think this is the case for the others, too. What's impressive was his almost forensic approach. His remarks read more like an autopsy than someone being in the situation he was in.
uvloop is meant to work with asyncio, which requires Python 3. So there is no point in supporting Python 2 (and trollius isn't maintained anymore).
Problem is, using destructors (and RAII) may have, in general, certain performance implications that C may not be willing to deal with. This is somewhat similar to demanding that C had a garbage collector built in. Note that, being lazy, memory management by means of garbage collection may turn out being more efficient than using the (eager) destructors.
Tangent: orders of magnitude are exponential - if you want to say "half an order if magnitude" you have to do it along the exponential curve. 5x is about 0.7 orders of magnitude; half an order of magnitude is a bit over 3x.
In my experience (doing some fairly heavy computation in nested loops), PUC Lua is faster than Python but slower than recent versions of Ruby.

LuaJIT is at least 10x faster than all three.
Definitions exist to serve us, not the other way around, so anthropocentricity isn't exactly a sin.

If we base our definition of life on observed interactions, we reacquire the same problems we had before, where we have difficulty deciding whether or not deceased ancestors / fictional characters / miscellaneous accidental Turing machines are alive. To be sure, a restricted subset of observed interactions are good proxies for determining life: if I see a bird interacting with a worm outside the window, it's a good bet that I could get up and scare it off / put out birdseed / etc, but I'd argue that if you tease out the restrictions required to define the subset of observed interactions that constitute life you're liable to find yourself right back at the interaction definition.
It still may try other identity files. You need the IdentitiesOnly option, I believe.

I've been bitten by this a few times.
Ah, makes sense. Relatively new to Python world and getting a handle on all the version differences.
IIRC, Boy's Life magazine is run by a boy scout organization while Girl's Life is run by a corporation chasing for the most eyeballs possible.
As a reminder, Switzerland has its own surveillance scandal in its past, the so-called "Fichenskandal" [0] during which almost 1 million people were under surveillance (out of approximately 7 million), between 1900 and 1990.

[0] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichenskandal (german language)
That's cool, but making people travel through lots of green space still has the net effect of reducing the ability of transit to serve customers and forcing longer commutes.

I'm glad housing is apparently affordable there. My views are probably affected by my experience growing up in California.
That's also not making sense to me. Women clearly are capable of being scientists, so what's wrong with criticizing magazines that only talk about beauty tips? And why would that necessarily lead to "failing in your own life"? It obviously doesn't. Look at, e.g., Sheryl Sandberg.
When huge groups organize to force gender norms to be crystallized into society, it prevents the evolution of that society to respond successfully to dangers and problems that face it.

A great example of 15 million or so people adopting this was the Mormon Proclamation on the Family [0], which set a mission statement for their religion that continues to result in political problems and furor.[1] [2]

These groups organizing to fight against existence of their taboo are a great issue, one that will often organize to prevent testing the unknown. I don't know if it's my relative youth and inexperience, but it seems to be getting worse than it was in times past, when entire cultures migrated or philosophically shifted (e.g. Polynesian settlement, the Enlightenment, etc.).

Links:

[0] https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-and-church...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008...

[2] http://kutv.com/news/local/defeated-in-the-us-lds-church-tak...
Well I, kind of, get your point but, as your image gives a perfect example, this isn't a problem unique to amazon.

On one hand I just wish they wouldn't list marketplace sellers when they already stock something themselves. But, doesn't having all those other options (as imperfect as they are) sway things a little in the consumer's interest?
While I detest Trump and authoritarians in general (which Hillary is really just a different flavor of), I don't think you're statement holds water here. California, where I live, is the ultimate nanny state - we've criminalized the everloving shit out of everything. California has 3x as many laws on the books than the next closest state in volume, and it makes many activities, business and personal, very complex.

'Progressive' ideology places the State in greater and greater control over defining most aspects of life, and tends to turn to law and mandates more frequently than other ideological systems. This naturally drives the use of state mechanisms as a means of operation and resolution over non-legal communal resolution between individuals.
It's mentioned in the article. Boy's Life actually has a noble mission behind it, whereas Girl's Life is for-profit trash (essentially). The parallelism between the names of the two is an unfortunate coincidence. Near as I can tell the Girl Scouts don't have a magazine, but if they did, it would be a better comparison against Boy's Life. Maybe they should publish one?
In five days Rosetta will head for crash landing on Comet 67P
Hell. Most of tech-support is through Twitter. My tweet carries a large amount of power compared to a phone-call to tech-support.
Ask HN: What React charting lib. do you use?
> because they didn't suit the interests of the USA

No, because they didn't suit the interests of halting the worldwide advance of totalitarian Communism.

Great powers throw their weight around. What's creditable in the US case is that they threw their weight around in part to promote liberty and democracy across the world. Not every action can be taken as beneficent in isolation, but in bulk the US has been massively beneficent to the world.
I feel this is... Well, mostly bullshitt.

First, "changed my brain" is a big, big statement and nowhere in the article is being pointed any MRI scan or something.

Going further: I have experienced something similar (the only sugar I take in during the day is that single pack I put in the one daily coffee I take after lunch) yet I did not feel all this troubles. My opinion is that I did not experience all this problems because I was not looking for it.
> Imagine if this type of thing happened in real-life. You walk out the door in the morning and you’re immediately attacked by Parul, Kevin, and Amelie.

I laughed out loud at this, because it's exactly what I'm experiencing now in West Africa.

Street vendors are aggressive about selling whatever they have, and they seem to assume I want it - almost like I owe it to them to buy it - I'm not sure if it's because I'm White, or it's just their standard procedure for everyone that walks by.

On my 3 minute walk to the local store, I get a minimum of 10 people in my face, trying to sell me cell phone recharge cards, peanuts and limes. Every single day I say no thanks, every single day they try again, sometimes even on the walk back.

I've tried ignoring them or not responding at all, and that usually makes it worse - they'll yell louder and louder (assuming I have not heard), hiss, make a kissing noise, and eventually put themselves in my way so I'm forced to acknowledge them.

Amazingly, even when I do buy something, and I clearly have it in my hand (a bunch of carrots for example), every single street vendor selling carrots will still try with 100% effort to sell me carrots.
Taipei 101 even turned it into a mascot of sorts, the Damper Baby

http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-damper-baby-and-tuned-mass-...

http://josellesoh.deviantart.com/art/damper-baby-292759048
NFixx here: The intent here is to interest anyone in the community (especially a business co-founder), to get in-touch, and we form a team to see this whole amazing project deliver real value to more individuals and collectives wanting to embrace a robust data-driven workflow, without delving into programming, devops or managing analytics dashboards.

Note: The whole project consists of 4 components:

[1] The Studio: Where you design the your native/web apps (called personas in the project dialect)

[2] The Historion: A general-purpose app that can morph into any app describable by a *.persona file or other Persona spec.

[3] The Theatre: Where published personas reside atm (platform-as-a-service), so users of your app can just use it online without you configuring servers,etc. Also, this can host the data ("acts"), posted from your designed apps, so that they can be readily analyzed without further infrastructure/config on your part.

[4] The Diviner: A general-purpose, config-free, user-controlled data-analysis dashboard (there's a generic, agnostic one [5] - you can point it at any compatible data apis you have), that is automatically available for your app's data soon as you publish the persona. (there's plans to definitely offer private instances for paying clients).

[1] https://studio.nuchwezi.com
[2] https://historion.nuchwezi.com
[3] https://theare.nuchwezi.com
[4] https://diviner.nuchwezi.com

READ about the motivation and background of Project-Okot (and other NuChwezi work): https://nuscribes.com/scribes_app/book/40/read/?#chapter-500

I need collaborators, I need beta-testers, and BUSINESS! Okay, perhaps I need a team most of all... I'm currently in East Africa (home), but hope I can form a global team of like-minded folks. We need resources to pull this off, and perhaps some capital. But, the promise is, this technology has the potential to not only disrupt app development, but also bring the power of building and leveraging data-apps, to many more businesses, especially here in Africa.

Market Research, Scientific Education (think, ease of collecting data and running quick analysis), polls, etc can leverage this immediately...

NOTE: under active development.
I am afraid that you are mistaken.

You will note that they say:

"Within FARS, we identified 7813 children aged 2 through 6 years who were vehicle occupants restrained in a child restraint system or a seat belt in a nondrivable passenger car, van, pickup truck, or sport-utility vehicle that was involved in a crash with at least 1 passenger fatality between 1998 and 2003. Of these 7813 children involved in fatal crashes, 1096 children (14%) were killed."

You will then note that in Table 1 for "Overall" the Fatal rate is 1096 (identical to the number of children, the 14% above, that were killed).

You will also note that if you add together the FARS and NASS CDS numbers you will get 9246, which is the total number of children aget 2-6 from both and also the sum of 1096 and 8150 from the "Overall" column on Table 1.

now that I think about it, it doesn't even matter. If the same relative rates are fatal and non-fatal (separately) that still says that they are practically equivalent.

Also, it says so in the paper...
What's the reasoning? I haven't regularly used c++ for ~8 years, but I know the basics. I thought the downside to STL was increased executable size? If there are no generic constraints I can imagine issues popping up; effectively using generics in .NET often means using a non-generic abstract base class, building the generic class on top of that, and then constraining the generic type to the abstract class. A pain compared to Java, where you have runtime type erasure, but worth it IMO for the better reflection. I figure there's some similar quirk/gotcha in c++?
> Perhaps maybe the author should have compared the practice to how Germans correlate re-naturalozed jewish citizens with health care use and reporting them for it, a quiet but severe controversy for that country.

This is where we differ. If we were talking about healthcare and someone brought up that point, I'd stop and think about it for a minute. Just because it refers to something evil and terrifying doesn't make it any less of a good point.

I actually learned something in this back-and-forth about how people perceive offensiveness in public dialogue, and react to perceived that offensiveness. I hope you make an effort to learn something too, and don't just come away with a haughty sense of victory.
The problem is that with all of the bullshit aside, they need to sell the magazine to some dwindling population still buying them.

The "heartwarming", positive cover is indeed heartwarming and a good message, but is also pretty lame, and unlikely to sell magazines.

I also question whether this is typical shallow/ignorant internet outrage. When I was a kid, Boy'a Life was a Boy Scouts magazine, and had annual themes that appeared every year at the same time. If you looked at the May/June cover, the annual Boy Scout Jamboree issue wouldn't be as "internet offensive".
Is this sarcasm by any chance?
> https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11.1201-pa.html

I'm sorry to say that this particular article contains some inaccuracies.

First: The Apollo 14 fix didn't involve providing any new code to execute. The fix changed some data values in erasable memory so as to fool the computer into thinking an abort has already started. For more details see: https://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/index.html#Final_exam_for_the...

-- Edit: The following paragraph is wrong. --

In fact, it was impossible to execute code from erasable memory: it was a Harvard architecture machine and code memory was in the nonerasable memory.

----

In fact, the ranges of adresses for ROM and RAM were disjoint and the code likely never jumped to RAM, so it seems to have been impossible to have any executable code from RAM be executed.

Second: The Apollo 11 problems were not caused by an undesired piece of software operating during the landing. It was caused by a mechanism for updating hardware counters that used up CPU cycles. In order to simplify concurrency issues, hardware counters were not directly manipulated by hardware in LGC. There were "increase" and "decrease" interrupts, which were raised when the counter would need to be increased or decreased. These interrupts had a hardwired interrupt service routine that called a "hardware counter inc/decrement" instruction (this instruction didn't even have an opcode, because it wasn't designed to be called from actual code). This took some CPU time each time it happened. Rendezvous radar angle was the counter that caused the problem. The reason that counter caused the problem was that when the radar was not set to computer control, the radar position signals going to computer could indicate random quickly changing garbage. For more details see: http://www.doneyles.com/LM/Tales.html

Why do I trust my sources more? In the first case, because I can actually verify that solution on the simulator and because the machine language documentation that was used to create the simulator makes it clear that code and data address spaces are separate. In the second case, because it's a more detailed description that matches what I know about LGC from other sources and because it comes from Don Eyles.
One "shortcut" isn't equivalent or "the answer" to a series of comprehensive, corrective habit adjustments. Perhaps the issue is that it's "weird" in Western countries, apart from high society, physical trades and cardiologists, to favor unhealthy, convenience foods and unspoken disdain of almost all physical effort.
Dropbox works. OneDrive might work now, it certainly did not work at the beginning. Office would try as hard as it could to make you try OneDrive, then you would try to save and it would fail.
I have some questions related to the usage of async. At what scale(in terms of number of users or server load) would choosing async based web frameworks over traditional web frameworks like Django/Pylons make sense?

While using async is much easier with the new async/await syntax compared to traditional async solutions like twisted, tornado etc., a lot of popular database connectors and ORMs do not support async currently.

Even if the libraries a person needs are present at the moment, there's always the chance that a library maybe required in the future that does not support async and it may not be feasible to write a replacement(either due to the person's lack of expertise or due to lack of funds to hire someone else to write it).

In such a case, would using a traditional library by spawning threads to run any blocking operation be a good stop-gap solution(until an async replacement comes along)?
The underlying technology isn't that difficult to understand...there is a web application firewall that sits in front of the web server serving the real content. There is also a load balancer to distribute the requests.

You can block the attack based on IP, request headers, rate control, geo, etc. The problem with some ddos attacks is the size of the request body. That's what usually overwhelms a server.

Ddos attacks do knock out the servers, but since the requests are distributed, then you don't see that. Because so many servers are getting knocked out, then real paying customers can't serve their content. I'm guessing that's why they pulled the plug.

Google's infrastructure is so large that knocking out a few servers won't impact much, they just spin them back up.
That's so impressive after having had a dictator installed and the coup against him being co-opted by Islamists. It's not like the US owes the Iranians held hostage by them anything, right? Especially considering how they really love Saudi-Arabia, while the US obviously wouldn't be caught dead supporting radical Islam with obscene amounts of money to fight the Russians or anything of that nature.
I love commentary on LuaJIT, it's like a discussion of the subtleties of an acient game whose practitioners understand and enjoy, and everyone else ignores.

My experience with LuaJIT has similarly been love, not much hate though. My lack of hate stems from the fact that I don't actually use it in production. I've used it as a learning and teaching tool for the past 4 or 5 years.

What I've learned:
Co-routines combined with traditional async IO can make for some very fast IO bound programs.

JIT based FFI for interop is the cats meow

The guts of operating systems can be easily explained using such a simple language.

I went as far as creating a collaborative 3D modeling program (ala OpenSCAD) using LuaJIT.

I've created an entire Windows API wrapper (TINN).

I've explored the guts of Linux (using ljsyscall), and done exploration of various bits and pieces (lj2procfs).

I've been able to explore and play with any manner of API from dozens of OpenSource projects and otherwise, simply because LuaJIT (and specifically the FFI) make it possible to quickly wrap them up in such a way that exploration with script is easy.

I never worry about the death of LuaJIT, just like I very rarely look at the guts of my machine that's been running since 2009. The various parts may no longer be supported, but somehow my machines manages to continue to operate. Eventually I'll build another one and move on.

With recent changes to TypeScript, and the emergence of the Chakra engine, I might be tempted to make JavaScript my new thing, but they lack FFI, which I really love. I wish there were a solution for that.

Go has co/goroutines, which I really like, but I don't think their C interop story is particularly compelling, and not quite a scripty thing, which I find to be fairly useful.

I was originally driven to LuaJIT because PUC Lua had a flaw in their OpenGL binding, and it just wasn't robust enough for my needs. I find no value in their current versions, because FFI seems to be the most valuable thing to me I guess.

So, since it's a play thing for me, I find no other language as compelling or useful, for my needs. Some day, I'll use one of the language tool kits to convert my most interesting Lua code to another language, hopefully one with a good FFI. Until then, I'll keep using it.

And, if you've been around the industry long enough, you realize one language won't do it all for all time. I've long since given up on Objective-C (from NeXT days), I no longer write 6502 assembly (although still very popular apparently). I dove into C++ in the past couple of years, and came out with hives! Rust and Go are on the horizon, and who knows what's after that.
Even their sentences don't make sense, they just pile up complex words together. There is not one sane line written.