skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The UNC paths in Windows are very much a Windows-ism. They work perfectly when you're in an all Windows environment, but there's no consideration to speaking non-Windows protocols.

The key problem I have with KIO is that it's doing something that should be done at a lower level so that every application can benefit.

As I see it, there are three classes of apps on Linux when it comes to file handling:

* Apps that can open remote files using one set of protocols (KIO-enabled apps).

* Apps that can open remote files using a different set of protocols (things that reinvent this wheel, like emacs in your example).

* Apps that can only work on local files.

So we get a situation where I can open a file on an SMB server using Kate, but I can't open the same file in Sublime Text. It makes for a terrible user experience.

The Mac makes it easy to mount filesystems, but it's kludgey compared to using UNC paths in Windows. This is the one feature that I really miss from Windows.
For a long time this wasn't really the case. In between C+98 and C++11, Stroustrop's book contained essentially everything you would want to know about C++, including details on how to implement the STL yourself!

The end of the book even included a grammar for C++ (with a slight comment about how the grammar wasn't exact because of C++ context sensitivity)
Indeed -- VERSION 2.6.6 Sun Mar 5 19:10:03 2000
Despite Obama's words it sounds like business as usual in Colorado if you've been following the news since then. Raids continue all the time in Colorado (including last month) and the banks keep getting pressured to not support the industry due to federal policy which has practically crippled growth.

Just this month the DEA openly blamed the legal companies following state laws as the source of criminality and baselessly dismiss the medical science behind it:

http://www.denverpost.com/2016/08/10/dea-reduce-medical-mari...

The DOJ is still prosecuting these cases too. So again I wouldn't hand out any prizes over just talk.

They've also made a number of tough statements against Wall st excess, mass surveillance, mass incarceration, etc. Should we reward that as well? Unless you look at the data and continued actions/policies of federal agencies you'll just be rewarding talk and the bare minimum of action to appease voter bases. Which doesn't get us anywhere. Low standards = bad results.
Some upfront planning is required but, there is an overall problem with comparing software to building construction.

If you make a blueprint and give it to 2 construction companies to build the building, you'll end up with 2 very similar buildings.

If you give a software spec to 2 separate software companies you'll get 2 completely different programs.

You can't create a blueprint/spec that is sufficiently detailed so that 2 different companies/teams will build essential the same software.

A blueprint/spec that detailed would be the code itself.

The closest analog to software would be designing processes, or maybe designing a factory or assembly line. And the analog to the code in that situation would be the factory or assembly line itself.
Actually if you have a Mac running Sierra, check out BasicNeuralNetworkSubroutines. Highly optimized primitives for exactly this purpose.
This is getting it backwards. The first introduction to CS is precisely when proofs matter most.

I agree that, ultimately, not everything has to be proven correct. Often there isn't even a well defined criterion for software correctness. But proofs absolutely matter in certain domains (algorithms, databases, compilers, etc.), and there's no way you can be ready to prove things about moderately tricky programs if you don't have practice proving things about toy ones.
You're not too dumb! You can do anything you set your mind to :)

I totally understand not wanting to dive into something like Haskell though. Between Go and Python, I personally would choose Go for a long term commitment. I think the language is simple yet beautiful, has a robust standard library, and performs really well.

Python can be learned super quickly though, and being able to whip up a script is useful (you can 'import' seemingly anything). I'd say it's worth sprinkling in a little Python on the side.
The whole article just seemed like one silly anecdote. "Well these are the books I actually read so it must be the same for everyone."

I think the author's next read should be a good statistics book.

Here's my anecdotal evidence. I have read 8 out of 10 from his first list. I have read everything except for TAOCP from the second list. Some of the ones from the second list I have read multiple times and I still go back too as reference from time to time.

I have started reading TAOCP on several occasions, but I'm not going to lie; that shit is complicated and the dry academic nature makes it even worse to parse. I still plan to get through it in my lifetime, but I keep prioritizing easier reading.
>>over 3x as many Americans who were killed in Iraq in total - so 3 Iraq wars per year.

I know what you mean, but it really bothers me that you are only counting American deaths. The total number of Iraqi deaths arising from the Iraq war is highly disputed, but it seems to be somewhere between 150,000 and a bit over 1,000,000, depending on the survey and whether it only counts direct deaths of combatants vs. surveys that count civilian deaths and indirect effects. In any case, deaths arising from opioids are nowhere near any amount of "Iraq wars per year".
Came here for that :)
It ended up with order sanity checks being implemented for all manual trading systems at Mizuho. Things like blocking an order if it's more than 10% away from the market mid, etc.

You shouldn't fix an issue like this with UI validation alone - it needs to go between the component that creates orders and the stock exchange, so that it also protects against software bugs. For instance, a possible bug is a developer multiplying the order size by the lot size in the backend, when it has already been multiplied in the frontend, causing huge orders to be sent. Sanity checks can catch this.

Automated trading systems have traditionally been under a lot of scrutiny, and nobody in their right mind would run one without sanity checks and a kill switch. That incident taught Mizuho that manual trading can, in fact, also be quite dangerous :)
Without getting into a pissing war if Brian says he's done something on the JVM, trust him.

Also if you need someone to validate that their system does 500 qps, you really need to check your assumptions. I'm trying very hard to think of what kind of system I'd build that would do less than that (hint each q would be big)
And so you rule in the virtual world of your own mind, while your medical friends are actually making a difference in the observable world, using good science that merely doesn't reach the mathematical proof level.

Biology and medicine often get besmirched by 'hard' science people and mathematicians, but you never see any of those besmirchers actually come up with pragmatic solutions to the problems biologists face.
There was Forth for the TI99/4a back around then also.
This is good advice and I've actually followed it for estimating software projects. If you say 4x of what you think, and your boss/client doesn't balk, you probably have it right.
Given the number of software estimates that fail and the number of software projects that collapse, the vast majority of developers are incapable of doing so.

If you are giving regularly accurate long-term estimates, I'd suggest that you create a consultancy that performs this service or teaches how to do it. Most companies and teams just aren't capable of doing this.
The author seems to be implicitly assuming that Intellectual Ventures is just a patent troll.

IV's business is much more than that. Besides buying outside commercially developed patents (similar to what a troll does), they also employ scientists and engineers directly to develop new things that IV can patent, and they fund outside researchers in exchange for patent rights.

At least some of the university patents IV has acquired were through such deals, where IV provides funding for the academic research that leads to the patent, and then IV gets commercialization rights to the patent, with the university getting a cut of any licensing fees IV gets from those patents.
Meet NextEV: The Biggest EV startup you've never heard of
VMware on AWS – Big News
I can't resist chiming in with another Endymion reference: the Hyperion Cantos by Dan Simmons. Fantastic series.
Well she already gets one of the best perks: queue-free bathrooms. Most of the new Amazon buildings are built with much less bathrooms to save floor space, but still have 50/50 womans/men bathrooms despite the huge gender bias.

Other perks include bread toasters if you're a SDE, ping-pong tables if you're in things like legal, and if you're unfortunate enough to deal with oracle there may even be snacks offered (only in a restricted area, obviously).

Your friend should negotiate very hard on salary, and perhaps even more importantly the level (assuming she's not straight from college). Most developers don't care much about titles and don't care if they're coming in as a SDE 1, 2 or 3 but Amazon makes a big deal about it. Being an SDE 1 will mean you can get shafted on everything from worse hardware specs (wtf?) and less hardware (e.g. SDE1's need to buy their own extra external monitors if they want one) and there's a lot less opportunities and discression until you get promoted which can be difficult
Maybe I'm underestimating the field, but I suspect there is still a lot to learn about chemistry in extreme environments (ultra hot, dense, etc), which would be most of the universe. Some experimentation is possible on Earth, but how much could we really learn about, say, liquid water if all we could produce were a few molecules in very restricted environments? I guess that's all kind of irrelevant until we're ready to try building transistors inside the Sun.
White Gold Wedding Rings: Explore Our Handmade Designer Collection
You're offering a lot of derision without any useful information. If you've discovered the secret to repeatable, predictable software development, by all means please share it.
If they were deploying to their entire fleet all at the same time, I would also shiver.

However, most likely that have many stages in their deployment with testing and monitoring that exponentially deploys and if any of those stages don't pass, they auto-rollback.

The End game: minimizing risk with code changes.

1. Deploying more often allows easier root cause analysis to identify the code breaking change.

2. exponential deployment allows developers to monitor their services as it partakes in more variation (more users = greater chance of edge case breaking bug)

3. proper monitoring and test coverage while using auto-rollbacks allows developers to deploy without fear as any unintended effects will be detected at the soonest possible moment while minimizing cost to the users of that breaking change. Then, auto-rollbacks will redeploy code changes that previously worked which should automatically mitigate that code breaking change.
Software people have dealt with nothing like the number of bodies buried under the Great Wall its engineers had. "Engineering" came from sappers, originally.

Engineers work for insurers. For the moment, software engineers work for people other than insurers. I'm not quite ready to turn my culture over to the actuaries just yet.
This is wrong. If the variables that affect estimates can be predicted, then they can be accounted for.

Source: i used to work at an organization you've heard of that could reliably predict, down to the day, how long it would take ~4000 engineers to build and release the next version of its product. Three years in advance.
"and I want a title that keeps me from having people hired over my head as we grow"

I don't think that just a title will protect you. If you can handle managing 5 people but don't have the skills to manage 50 people, it's not going to be in the company's best interests to keep you on as the CTO. So you'll be offered the following options:

- Accept a demotion and report to the new CTO

- Be fired from your job and get replaced by the new CTO

If the company wants to avoid this unpleasantness, they can call your role something other than CTO, e.g., "Director of Development". Then, if the company grows, they can either promote you to CTO or hire a CTO to be your boss, depending on how promising you are.
I suppose one potential upside to a Trump presidency would be the possibility of a pardon for Assange and Snowden, out of sheer spite.
Rails shooters are probably going to be the bulk of VR experiences, IMHO.
It really goes over well when you blow most of the development budget on estimating slightly more accurately.
Microservices antipatterns and pitfalls
The s-expression version of Dylan was my all-time favorite programming language. I've tried to be interested in the present version of Dylan, but it hasn't worked.

The first version of the OS for Newton was written in a language called Ralph (named for Ralph Ellison, the author of Invisible Man). Someone persuaded John Sculley that writing an OS in Lisp was a crazy idea, so he ordered Larry Tesler to redo it in C++. Larry asked a small group of us to see if we could find a role for Ralph on Newton. We probably took that mandate more broadly than Larry intended; we wrote another whole OS (except for the microkernel and the graphics kernel; we reused the the same ones that the C++ effort was using). It was probably the most intense and rewarding 18 months of my programming career. There were some really cool things that happened, and some really tragic ones.

Later it was decided that "Ralph" was not a good name for the language, and we chose "Dylan" in a process that yielded a few mildly funny stories.

Ralph was basically a subset of Scheme with a few special forms renamed, plus a subset of CLOS, plus a few additional extensions. All built-in Ralph datatypes were CLOS-style classes.

The native-code compiler was written in Macintosh Common Lisp. The development environment was an extended version of MCL called "Leibniz". Besides the usual MCL features, it additionally had a parallel set of tools--for example, in addition to the Lisp Listener, there was a Ralph Listener. Common Lisp code was compiled to native code and ran on the Mac's CPU. Ralph code was compiled to native code and ran on the Newton's CPU. At first the Newton motherboard was a big honking PC board jammed into a Nubus slot, so big that I had to leave the top off my Macintosh IIfx when it was installed. Later a ribbon cable connected the Nubus to a prototype Newton tablet-type device.

Making Ralph self-hosting on Newton would have been a lot more work, we would have had to live without a host of useful development features for a long time, and it would have required special target hardware with much more storage than Newton was intended to have. Using a cross-compiler written in Common Lisp neatly solved all those problems, plus it also gave us all of MCL's rather nice tools plus whatever extensions we chose to add.

Apple did do a bunch of stuff in Lisp around that time. For example, it did GATE, a knowledge-based automated testing system invented by Matt Maclaurin (I worked on that for a while), and SK8, the fabled "HyperCard on Steroids" invented by Ruben Kleiman (I worked on that for a while, too).

However, Lisp was never really a mainstream tool at Apple, except in certain groups in ATG (the Advanced Technology Group, which no longer exists). In fact, the only mainstream languages at Apple were, in rough chronological order, 6502 assembler, 68000 assembler, Pascal, C, C++, Objective-C, and now, of course, Swift. All kinds of languages were used here and there, but only the ones on the mainstream list had any great general acceptance.
For businesses it's been shown repeatedly to be a good thing.

http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ruchikatulshyan/2015/01/30/racia...

https://hbr.org/2013/12/how-diversity-can-drive-innovation
Was this part of the recently reported $100k ChromeOS flaw? If so interesting for learning purposes.
> estimates that were statistically sound

Please explain exactly what you mean by this.
The things may be silly, but they still cost serious money. So Hyperloop appears to just gone from "unfunded wacky idea" to "funded wacky idea".
You are definitely a CTO. And as one I agree completely. Without creativity in the hands of the craftsman who actually make the product there is no craft, only a tool.
Statistics stops you. Blood testing is all about statistics. You measure a certain number of things in the blood test, which gives you an idea of how much of the thing you're looking for is in the blood.

Some of these things (bacteria, virus, etc) only needs to be in the blood in very low concentrations to be harmful, and to get a good reading you need a larger sample.
Yeah and unless the FPGA manufacturers start supporting open toolchains, it can end in an instant when the parts become EOL and Lattice (maker of the ICE40 series) starts obfuscating.

The problem with open toolchains from the manufacturer's point of view is that they have nothing to gain and everything to lose. They don't want to sell chips one at a time to hobbyists. They want to sell them millions at the time to GM and other companies. In their mind, open toolchains buy them nothing but leave them open to competitors stealing their designs. I'm not saying this view is accurate, it is just how chip vendors think.
http://elixirforum.com is a good place to check out. There are a few excellent books out there to help you get started with OTP, which makes Elixir beastly, and Phoenix (a web framework) as well. The forums are an excellent place to find deals on books, too.
The patent that Linus was on for anyone interested: http://www.google.com/patents/US20100169613
The patent that Linus was on for anyone interested: http://www.google.ch/patents/US20100169613
I'm roughly between 3x and 10x off, depending on the type of work. For greenfield work on small well-understood tasks and with application and test infrastructure setup, I'm ~3x off. Constantly changing complex applications without tests, I'm ~10x off. However even these multipliers have a 1-20x margin of error.
the answer is simple: the FDA is not a police agency and the DEA is.

their domains overlap because the prohibition culture of the U.S. government does not treat "drugs" rationally (i.e. as if they were simply medicines) but rather has tied the entire concept up in a gordian knot of fear, racism, social engineering, and in-group selection.

similarly, alcohol and tobacco, despite obviously being "drugs" even according to the logic of the federal government bureaucracy, are given their own police agency as well, because the DEA was tasked with persecuting hippies and brown-skinned people, whereas the ATF was tasked with shooting up disobedient white people.
Not likely to happen.

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/02/27/trump-freedom-press-n...
GitLab booted it too. Something fishy going on here.

Edit: Mirror of the 5900 sites: https://archive.fo/8u0iB
Out with the Poor, in with the Rich: The Landlord’s Guide to Gentrifying NYC
many of us HNers were / are amigans. some still owe them or at least use an amiga emulator. the amiga community is still alive and kicking. don't mind the impact amiga had on computing
Introducing Zaius, Google and Rackspace’s Open Server Running IBM Power9
unfortunately flightradar24 does not offer an api even in their paid subscription
If you were at 3D robotics, forget it. Might be coincidence.
The larger the jurisdiction, the lower the safe margin can be.
The other day I saw a post on social media that how he explained spaces from 0-dimension to 10-dimention in simple drawings. At the end, he claims that 10-dimentional space is just a dot, and there is no higher dimensional space more than 10-dimention any more. And he justifies his claims based on the string theory. At that time immediately I thought about the billions of parameter space in deep neural network and fractal spaces such as Mandelbrot Set. How could one simulate the universe based on only 3D space-time lattice?
It's not really surprising that writing one byte can break software. For a really simple example, consider the following function:

bool authenticate(const char *username, const char *password)
{
const char *correct_pass = get_pass(username);
return (strcmp(correct_pass, password) == 0);
}

Now imagine you know a way to change the first byte in the password entry (i.e, what becomes correct_pass) to \0. Now pass a blank password to this function and it will always return true for any username.
Fascinating, I did not know that these were Assange's goals.

I agree that there should be a way for Whistleblowers to legally leak information to the public in order to uncover illegal actions, but there should also be a process in place to prevent people from getting killed as a result.

One example why this secrecy is hurting the West and most parts of the world is what is going on in Syria. A few weeks ago the US bombed a position of the Syrian army killing 80 soldiers, while ISIS launched an offensive on that same position almost simultaneously. Russia in response bombed some bunkers in Aleppo.

What later came out was that apparently Russian soldiers were killed because they were present at the position where the US bombed and that about 30 US/French soldiers were killed in the bunker Russia struck in retaliation. (they were helping "moderate" Islamist opposition)

Secrecy only allows governments to act in a way that could potentially cause a war with Russia and it also allows them to support Radical Islamic terrorists.

Who exactly benefits from that? Not the West, not the Russians and certainly not the Syrians. I wouldn't have Millions of Arab men roaming the streets here in the EU, some of them plotting terror attacks, Syria would probably not even have had a civil war, Libya wouldn't be a large terrorist training camp and the same goes for Iraq. And people around the world want us dead for it, many parts of the world that once were safe to travel cannot be visited anymore.

I just can't see how continuing in the current direction can have any other result than destroying our civilisation.
In my opinion this seems all pretty pointless. To be able to differentiate between a simulation and reality you have to know at least how one of those works in quite some detail. What if we discover floating point rounding errors in the laws of physics we observe? Who is to say that this is not a feature of reality? What if it is the other way round, what if we live in a simulation with laws of physics made out of real real or complex numbers but the reality outside of our simulation has laws of physics behaving like floating point numbers? It seems pretty impossible to ever figure out what reality or a simulation must look like so that we can determine what surrounds us. Maybe there is some incredible self-consistency law at the bottom of reality, forcing reality to be what it is because there is one and only one way reality can be. But besides something like that?
no telnet? no SSH? Probably OK then.
At my codeschool (jaaga.in/study) last night we all hung out enjoying your videos. Thanks !
Neoconservatism isn't just about the military industrial complex, or oil, it's also about the Jewish lobby.
Couldn't one achieve the same thing simply by prefixing your DB keys with a blue/green bit and just atomically swap out which prefix should be used for reads?
Agreed on this: it's handy because it has a catalog of design elements and tells you when you should and shouldn't use them. That's pretty helpful compared to more abstract theories about UI stuff, for some people.