skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> I don't feel like typing much because it's nap time but IRCv3 is an almost closed group of friends, mostly znc core developers, who have decided they can choose what the future of IRC looks like.

This is how standards get built now. See also: systemd, R6RS.
Hired.com, AngelList, talk to a recruiter. If you've got a CS degree from a decent school, it won't take long to get interviews.
This is really neat. The synchronous languages like Esterel have been doing great in real-time, safety-critical systems. As paper notes, the common problems in distributed and operating systems are more asynchronous in nature. Plus, modeling/verification and programming usually use separate tools. They tackle both jobs with one tool for asynchronous programming that proved itself out finding hundreds of bugs in a USB3 stack that's shipping to a wide audience.

Programming languages rarely get better introductions and early results than that. Props to the Microsoft Research team on this.
Inspire Through Validation
Have you heard about the (relatively) recent results coming from experiments testing gravity waves?

Hopefully they live up to your standard of science.

Even if they don't, I think labelling maths and models and simulations as 'non-science'is disengenuous.

First, theorycrafting is an important step in science, it is a formalised way of building hypotheses. If an individual or an entire discipline is devoted to theorising what may be, while others test those theories, they are doing science.

It is also science to test models with simulation. Proving a model does not prove the system being modelled, but we still need to know if, for example, the model is consistent. There are many situations where a model has no closed solution, and so the only way to test it is through simulation. Models are a key part of science; claiming that the testing of those models is somehow not science seems a pointless pedantry even if it were true.
People keep talking about git's terrible UI. I dont get it, anybody who had used subversion or cvs before could grasp the basics in like 5 minutes and have much better user experience.
Could you elaborate on this? As someone unfamiliar with Jekyll, I don't know what you mean.
Codeacademy for software security training
Rising Star of the Music Industry Qrystal Enjoys Her Super Margarita
Except Twitter is not mailing a letter - it's like renting up a billboard in front of Christie's house, that says that you're going to kill her and rape her.

Doing that will absolutely land you in a criminal court. 'She doesn't have to look at it' won't be a great defense, either.

Words have consequences, and centuries of precedent and legislature have established them.
His remark written in 1993 is:

"The 1980s will probably be remembered as the decade in which programmers took a gigantic step backwards by switching from secure Pascal-like languages to insecure C-like languages. I have no rational explanation for this trend. But it seems to me that if computer programmers cannot even agree that security is an essential requirement of any programming language, then we have not yet established a discipline of computing based on commonly
accepted principles."

It was written on "Per Brinch Hansen (letter to C.A.R. Hoare 1993a", however I got the quote from "Java's Insecure Parallelism" and so far failed to find a copy of his letter.

I have spend the day going through his papers after you posted them, and now Solo with Concurrent Pascal, done in a PDP-11/45 is yet another proof I can refer to for safer alternatives done in about the same age C was coming to life.

EDIT: Typos
I am very sorry, You are right to correct me Clinton did not say that. (however I did not really get a clear answer on how she feels, but that might be my lack of understanding her)

Trump might be a moron in your eyes, I think he is very untalented in the political way of talking.

I don't think being comparable to Putin is good or smart.
Frankly, your statements are extremely conflicting. Pure work sample hiring is in direct contradiction with hiring trainable people.

I do not expect a VB programmer to be able to code up a single-page React app during an interview, even though building a React app would be a representative problem. Do you?

So which one is it? Hire exclusively through work samples, or hire trainable people? I mean this seriously: how do you reconcile these two? You're a strong proponent of work sample hiring but also of training—do you expect people to come in and do a security audit for their interview, even when one of your hiring goals is to hire people with no security experience?

I would personally much rather hire someone who is a strong overall programmer (but might very well not be able to code a JavaScript app in an interview) over someone who knows a little JavaScript (so they can do a simple problem) but has relatively shallow abilities.

> That's called "work sample hiring", and it's the gold standard for candidate evaluation.

Having a discussion about someone's existing work is, in fact, another gold standard of hiring and is quite similar to having someone do the work on the job. It's not quite as good as having someone execute work, but it's the next best thing—especially when you're trying to hire people who don't have direct domain experience.
I don't know if you've ever worked with MS SQL Server in production but for us it's been the most amazing piece of technology in our stack for the past 15 years.

SQL Server is in the top 3 best things to be published by Microsoft ever. (The other 2 are probably Excel and Flight Simulator)
Yes, see for example: http://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/vaccination/effectivene...
The manual is here (linked from github readme): https://github.com/p-org/P/blob/master/Doc/Manual/pmanual.pd...

Calling a core language keyword "goto"? They're brave.

And I'm not convinced of the utility of baking their own C-like imperative language when they could have actually used real C. There are already too many C-like languages out there that are just different enough from C to be annoying.
Two More Impossible Cylinders
Even if you don't take them seriously, they can still do a lot of damage. Even ignoring the psychological elements of being constantly denigrated, these groups can usually drive people off of Twitter by sheer mass of tweets.

"Just block them", it's easy when there's one or two accounts being dicks. It's much more difficult when 4chan's recruited 50,000 accounts to be dicks.
I have moved from Jekyll to Hugo. Functionally it's the same for my use case, but in a single binary, meaning I don't have to maintain a full Ruby stack.

I've now moved it into Lambda, so to post a new page to my blog, I drop the markdown file in an S3 bucket, and literally a few seconds later my blog is updated, Cloudfront and all.
I like a lot about Fossil and moved many projects into it for a while. What I eventually couldn't tolerate was the lack of rebase (and history rewriting in general). There are extensive debates going back years on the Fossil mailing list about the topic, but ultimately the authors were pretty firm that rebase/rewriting history is bad and they didn't want to support it.

My local workflow uses commit rewriting a lot in order to keep a useful history. I commit like crazy and then squash/reorder/rebase to make a nice logical history (http://gitup.co is awesome for this on OSX, BTW). I couldn't do this, at least at the time, with Fossil, and ended up with piles of not-very-useful commits.
After watching the presentations about the state of the union in regards to kernel security in Android, I came to realize that I was wrong in bashing Google for their constrained NDK.

Actually, they should constrain it even more, given the poor state of kernel exploits and how the whole security updates doesn't happen across Android devices.
Sometimes you can do this with things like smtp servers as well.
Im sure you'll tell yourself you chose not to respond but could have.

But I sincerely hope you'll at least try for your own benefit. I think having to explain why poorly raised mentally disabled people saying racist things are deplorable rather than unfortunate, without merely assuming your conclusion is right would teach you a lot about yourself. You don't even have to show me: just spend 5 minutes typing it out for yourself. Why not be sure you're right instead of merely assuming Im wrong?

Good luck on your commit. (:
I guess they mean that a lot of the best tools are open source, no money required.
Is this used in the Windows 10 USB driver, like the windows 8 driver?
Silkworms Spin Super-Silk After Eating Carbon Nanotubes and Graphene
The tap water in my new apartment tastes terrible. Bottled water tastes so much better. But bottled water is so inconvenient and wasteful. So I bought a pitcher with a filter, and the tap water tastes bearable after that.
One result worth noting is that checkout line speed is faster when each worker has their own line.
http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~yrosokha/docs/Humans%20Are%20Not%...
Does anyone else remember playing Zork?

http://mentalfloss.com/article/29885/eaten-grue-brief-histor...
That's because Mr Sharkley, I am not against people mingling but people clashing. Pushing for open borders is a basic denial of human nature.

I think the denizens of this website would get along because regardless of race or class our cultural values are similar. Culture reduced to a single person is a personality, and ours are quite similar. And this is a very recent development yet the distinctions between different groups of people online are well defined. When I first met a large group of computer geeks in person, it was like coming home from a distant journey.

I agree that geographical boundaries are somewhat arbitrary but I don't agree that the idea of borders themselves are immoral. They seem more like a natural and organic adaption to the world. Birds of a feather flock together. That is what open borders proponents are up against, they are lumpers in the eternal battle between the lumpers and splitters.

> Similar arguments were made against dismantling the institution of slavery

I didn't make an argument that some people are intrinsically disposed to being slaves so I'm not sure what similarity you are seeing, perhaps you could develop that into a comparative explanation since I do not see it.

> You are doing nothing to argue that closed borders are moral,

I made no such claim. It is you who made a claim about morality and borders. You are the one who would be required in a classical debate to give up a rhetorical explanation for the motion.

> just that implementing open borders has caused problems in some cases.

That is indeed my claim. I think many countries are similar enough that an exchange of citizens would not lead to significant disruptions. The states of California and Texas are quite different but I presume they wouldn't kill each other. However should 500 years pass I would be much less confident about that statement because the differences may be too stark by then.

A exaggerated version of this is North Korea and South Korea. Two countries, with a common language, genetics, yet in less than fifty years the differences have become profound. In another fifty years they may be irreconcilable.

There is no real reason to believe all groups are destined to become one people, which is what most open borders proponents I've met do believe. The borders mostly exist because of politics, it was never geography or ability to commute with transports that caused splitting.

I think we're dealing with something that organically happens with group dynamics, like how a village behaves differently to an urban metropolis, and I don't think open borders people have explanations for these dynamics.

What I do know is that historically large population movements of different peoples are a prelude to war. They always have been and I see no reason why they won't be once more.
I don't understand the bit about music being unpiratable due to blockchain. Just because the music is there, doesn't mean it can't be taken from there and played somewhere else.

I do think the idea of micro-transactions could solve the problem of the convoluted rights contracts in music.

We currently work from the assumption that a song is recorded and a contract exists between the artist and maybe a label and that those are the two parties which get paid. In actual fact, the deals are much more complicated than that. Sometimes the studios get a cut, sometimes the graphic artist who did the cover work gets a cut, songwriters, managers, back-up musicians, it is very complicated.

If each song on the blockchain acts as a contract with the details of who gets what, this would make the buying and selling of music on a massive scale much simpler.
Telegram Blockly
Thanks for your feedback and interest.

1. We'll improve the help text to be more specific about what we'd expect for that field.

2. The reason we didn't implement OAuth is that we want user to be able to use the same email address in multiple accounts, so the account + email identifies the user not just the email address.

3. We are planning to use cross account IAM role instead of asking access key/ secret key. Will this address your concerns?

4. We are not just provision k8s cluster in your AWS account, k8s nodes will be running in your AWS account and we'll host the master components like etcd, api servers, controller managers and schedulers for you. Those components will be running in our AWS account, the more node you connect to the master, the more resource we need. So we charge based on the number of nodes in the cluster. This is similar to the GKE (not GCE) offering where you only run k8s nodes in your account not the masters.
Got any tips on recognising a bad idea early?
A reason to do it is because most internet users >99.9% have a web browser. <0.01% have an irc client. You could argue that Twitter or Slack has sort of filled this niche for people who want to do #topic based chat but if the goal is to do it in an open protocol, then that's imo why it would be applicable to irc.
I think it had more to do with GitHub than anything else. In GitHub's early days, they put a lot of effort into marketing Git (e.g. the now defunct "Git Is Better Than X" website), because they needed people to use it in order to use GitHub.
On GitHub Pages, GitHub will run a basic Jekyll for you -> you don't have to install or run it locally, just edit the source files in the repo and it builds and publishes the page for you.
I guess they went the theory it's the next letter after C in BCPL as B and C exist.
I find the lack of automation of many business processes fascinating. Many of my friends are paid a fortune to carry out mundane data processing tasks and confidently reach analytical conclusions that do not seem really robust.

I dunno how much of this is:

phycological - people have an optimism about the usefulness and difficulty of their work and deference to abide with convensions.

Stratigic - people somehow lose power and influence if their domain is standardised/automated or they admit high levels of uncertainty.

Lost in translation - You said that many people don't think like programmers in addressing problems, but I also often feel grated when businessy topics come up on HN and clever programmers appear to slightly butcher simple microeconomics. I probably do the same when discussing solutions to theoretical algorithm questions.

There's a value in establishing a common terminology and philosophy within a field because of increased communicational efficiency and agreement. This comes at the costs of alienating the less experienced and creating a clash on domain interfaces. Maybe if programmers and business execs knew more about each other's cultures then more useful tools could be made.
Andrzej Wajda dies at 90
I'd say it's closer to the beta-level simulations described in Revelation Space (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_in_Revelation_Space...) - it's a statistical model derived from external observations. Kurzweil's brain uploading is equivalent to alpha-level simulation.
Sometimes the best question is the simplest one. I agree the original has a lot of scope of improvements but I prefer the debate and the range of answers which wouldn't have been the case if the original question was more specific.
>Sir Karl Popper is not really a participant in the contemporary professional philosophical dialogue; quite the contrary, he has ruined that dialogue. If he is on the right track, then the majority of professional philosophers the world over have wasted or are wasting their intellectual careers.

That doesn't really mean Popper is wrong.
They could offer "premium" accounts, the way Amazon does or Hulu used to, where there are no ads and some add-in services are discounted or free.

Or they could offer little widgets you can buy and post on your profile page, like LiveJournal does (assuming it still does; it's been ages.)

Or a combination of the two, like DeviantArt.

There's plenty of options. Hell, sell Twitter plushies. That failwhale image was pretty cute.
I keep posting them since he simply got so much done ahead of others. Invented monitors, nucleus concept for OS design, safe[r] concurrency, co-invented Wirth-style development of OS's (sort of drew on each other), and so on. Thing I like about his papers is he comes off like a real engineer that tried to get at the root of the problem, solve it in a systematic but practical way, avoid overcomplication, and clearly publish the solution. Yet, hardly anyone knows his name or research. I fix shit like that. :)

Wait till you get to Edison System on PDP-11 that gave us C and UNIX. He beat BCPL author and Wirth at their game of over-simplifying systems. Language was simpler than C, safer, easier to compile, and more efficient for calls between tasks. Then he did distributed system language after that. I for whatever reason haven't got around to reading those in depth but I'm sure they'll be interesting.
For more on bumblekind:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12664568
I have also done websites in Hugo; the inflexibility of golang's template processor was extremely limiting to the point that I would never use Hugo again.
Foldit: crowdsourcing computer game to contribute to scientific research
Inside the home (and mind) of world chess champion Magnus Carlsen
Fossil has always seemed really cool, but I don't know if having everything in one big dependency bundle is actually a good thing. For a variety of reasons, there will never be a consensus on the right issue tracker and wiki for every project (and Fossil's implementation is necessarily quite lightweight and light on capabilities compared to the big guys), so having them all tied together in an integrated whole is probably one reason Fossil as a revision control system didn't take off. It caused bunch of people to select out because they were thinking, "Well, we can't use this tracker or this wiki, because we need X and Y from our tracker/wiki. This system isn't for us."

That said, I'd love to see these features built as add-ons to git; it wouldn't be particularly difficult (no more difficult than developing a ticket tracker or a wiki independent of git). Then again, I'm uncomfortable with the repository dragging in lots of big stuff like screenshots and diagrams and such, which are very common for bug trackers and wikis and less common for code repositories (and something git historically didn't do well, anyway).

Perhaps having a separate git repo for each piece (source, bugs, wiki) and a convention of including links to them inside of special hidden file (like .gitignore) would be the right thing. But, then we don't have the issues and docs following the code around very closely, which gives up some of the positives.

But, out of the box, Fossil is a really nice looking system. If I weren't working with other people who already know git (which describes almost everyone everywhere), I'd probably give it a go. But, I am, so I won't.
"If you can't show them to us, we're not going to accept that they exist in the same sense as books, chairs, and alpha particles."

Most scientists believe in plenty of things they can't see, such as magnetism, viruses, gravity, etc.

What they can see of these are, arguably, their effects or the behavior of instruments that can detect them.

But many scientists also believe in plenty of things that can neither be seen nor (again, arguably) measured, like love, freedom, happiness, and even God.

I am reminded of this anecdote about a dedicated neurophisiologist writing to his wife:

My dear.

I Have long thought of myself as an acute and well-informed
interpreter of your behaviour. I think I have been able to identify
nearly every thought that has made you smile! My research has even
made such a progress that I no longer need to understand you IN THIS
WAY. I'm happy to say I'm now in a position, with the aid of an
apparatus which I shall promptly attach you, to assign to each body
movement you make a specific antecedent condition in your cortex.

In the meantime, perhaps you would have dinner with me tonight.

I trust you will not resist if I bring along this apparatus then to
help me determine, as quickly as possible, the physiological
idiosyncracies which obtain in your system.
You should think a little bit ahead of that, give them fake tusks filled with poison gas (anti-human only). You aren't going to win this war being the passive one.
> Calling a core language keyword "goto"? They're brave.

I thought so too, but it makes sense really. State machine only have one state and can only go to a new state from another - you don't call functions and return to the current state.
I couldn't post for a while, throttled or something. It's personal tax while I saved for later spending on the start-up. Even when optimized the US company tax rate was too high to be viable. I'm not American but could have move the company here - I wish I could afford it because I love living in SF.
> Ruthless enforcement is already happening today in most western european countries.

Oh please. It took 6 years for the EU to penalize Ireland for the double irish/dutch sandwich avoidance mechanism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-30/apple-ire...
The prefix is discoverable by client A though: it can send a self-message and thereafter knows the maximum length it can send to any given target.
No. Again, its not the corporate structure that dictates classification, its the relationship.

https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employe...
Only if another stream producer is in close proximity.
One of the 'shortcuts' in the Infocom Z-parser based games when I entered a room that was rich in 'stuff' was to issue a 'take all' command. That would immediately give me an idea of what was an object that could be manipulated vs what wasn't. e.g.

> take all

bottle: taken

table: that's nailed to the floor

bed: that is too heavy to take

wallet: taken

rug: you can't take that!

This (a) automatically lets me pick up anything that I can (and drop the ones that I don't immediately need), but (b) it also tells me that there is no point in trying anything with the table & rug, but the BED might still be an actionable item because of the response. Perhaps I could 'move' instead of 'take' the bed?
Not sure why I'd have to do so. I've never made any comment that referred to mentally disabled people. Unless you equate sexism to a mental disability? If that's so, like wow.
Time to point out what Evian spells when read backwards...