skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Yes, an order of magnitude, in PHP we're talking about _minutes_ in Rust we're talking about _hours_ or even _days_ for a beginner programmer, ever tried to install Homebrew in a Mac to name an example? It adds at least a few hours to the equation with its dependency on Xcode unless you already know to just install the command line tools.

Remember that a beginner programmer doesn't always have a background in Computer Science, maybe it's a child, maybe a graphic designer, maybe an elder person or a housewife. Are you really expecting from a person foreign to CS to stop tinkering just because they can't write secure and performant code in your favorite language?

Again, stop taking for granted the initial process setup and all the gotchas that you already know, stop nitpicking in the example of templating and see the big picture: A beginner programmer being able to get instant feedback with little effort in their browser of choice. No initial project or repository set-up, no install for external libraries, no huge development environments (like Xcode or Visual Studio), no build process or compilation, no command line, just an app like WAMP (on Windows) or MAMP (which people accustomed to homebrew avoid) and a browser pointing to http://localhost.

PHP is not a perfect language, but it's neither the abomination people like you describe, too many people judge PHP by its former state of the art and are unaware of the progress it has had in the last years, many of the most popular issues are already gone or at least are too difficult to trigger, to name an example, PHP stopped having register_globals since version 5.4, and PHP 7 added strict type hinting, which throws an error instead of doing unexpected type coercions.

That doesn't mean that PHP is a better choice than properly-designed alternatives, just that it's less worse than before. I agree with the sentiment of using a well-designed language like Rust, but only when a project really requires that degree of security and performance (ex. writing a browser like Servo).

A bakery website written by the kid of a patissier doesn't require that degree of security and performance... Or are you really going to demand that child to use your favorite language just because you despise PHP?
Are there good spam filters these days?
Of course! I didn't mean you shouldn't have...
I was thinking the patent owner must be building, maintaining, and/or selling a product it covers with at least the amount of labor and updates as average competing product or IT project. Originally the benchmark was vs fastest-developing competitor to incentivize Shenzhen-like innovation with some patent protection for incentives. I thought quality might tank further, though, so leaned toward average.
Obama advocates for censorship of internet
It's because there is no consensus on any of those things, particularly political beliefs surrounding free software. The people who are saying free software is about scratching itches are generally not the same people who equate contributing to free software with fighting for the future of political and social freedom. You're not seeing contradictory positions because you're (usually) not seeing the same people state those positions.

If it seems that way, it's because a given online discussion isn't a random sample of people's beliefs. For example, to someone reading Reddit or Slashdot (or HN sometimes, unfortunately), it's easy to jump to the conclusion that everything sucks and everyone hates everything. Post an article about Python, and all the comments will be about how Python is terrible and everyone should use Ruby (or whatever). Post an article about Ruby, and all the comments will be about how Ruby is terrible and everyone should use Python (or whatever). Read the same site for long enough and it will start to look like a mass of contradictions- "wait, everyone here said Python sucked before and I should use Ruby, but now they're all saying Ruby sucks and I should use Python?!?" But really it's just different people showing up to disparage whatever the topic of discussion is. I think it's just the nature of the medium that makes it really hard to gauge consensus within a community.
> But yet you don't really hear doctors saying "how can a judge hear a case about a medical issue!" (look maybe some say that but not a lot).

I hear this all the time. (I am a doctor's son.) Heck, you could probably get judges to say the same thing; they've completely abdicated on the question of whether something is or isn't legally-permissible medical care. The legal question, when you are sued for malpractice, is whether you conformed to "the local standard of care", which is different everywhere. If the local standard of care is obviously harmful to patients, that's not your fault. They should have been local to somewhere else. Did something bad happen to your patient by chance? If you didn't conform to the standard of care, you're probably at fault, regardless of whether it could have been related to something you did.

This situation obtains because judges are incapable of judging medical issues. Judges know it, doctors know it, and I know it, but I guess you didn't know it.

See also the discussion a while ago about how forensic science is basically just 100% fraudulent court testimony, but the courts are too reliant on that to give it up.
You mean like just about every other divisive issue in American politics?
Isn't that the whole point of hiring engineers?

No. If all twitter cared about was keeping the existing service running they could do it with 1/10th the current technical staff.
honestly, its the solar powered roadways for the technology oriented crowd. the science is beyond the majority of readers but who would want to admit they truly don't understand what they are supporting and look bad among peers who support it?

look, it might be technically possible but it in no means is viable. it does sound really cool though.
> "death spirals" or "flat spins".

Just an aside, for the record, obviously not important but since the topic came up...

A spiral and a spin are two very different things, and a spin and a flat spin again are very different.

In a spiral you actually still fly, in a spin you are not, you are in a continuous stall situation. That means from a spiral you can recover simply by "flying out of it", for a spin you have to do stuff you would not do when "flying", like full(!) and sudden rudder.

This heavily depends on the airplane, but a flat spin can be really dangerous, getting out of one often is much harder than from a "normal" spin. No problem in an aerobatic airplane, but in a jet it can be an unrecoverable situation.
Quantum mechanics are only non-deterministic in a single timeline. Going back in time doesn't mean it's any easier to determine the future given the current state, so you can freely "replay" without leaking information.
Hyperloop was accepted into the Dubai government accelerator, which is a 3 month program specifically meant to match you up with a government department and sign a contract. The accelerator is overseen by the Sheik's son. There's a lot of money behind this program.

Consensys the blockchain company is in the accelerator as well as Sure Chill for cooling medicines, and an augmented reality for education startup, and potentially a concrete 3D printing company as well. There are allegedly 30 companies in the cohort although the list hasn't been made public.

I think the program has a huge amount of potential to rapidly scale up these technologies, I just hope that the companies are able to scale with the demand.
Un-building an ink jet printer
"hello FBI switchboard operator - please connect me with the department where I can confirm receipt of my secret subpoena"
Well put. I prefer enforcing things by technical means when possible and via policy and process at other times. Sadly I see a lot of policy and process that isn't enforced, thus it might as well not be there. Nevertheless, I'll just attempt to improve that which is within my sphere of influence.

I suppose I'll just have to do my best to expect excellence and tolerate failure. I appreciate the insight.
Shameless plug, since I recently wrote it: https://medium.com/the-craftsman/the-whoa-how-did-you-do-tha...

Basically, don't forget the human in human computer interaction/UI/UX. It's very easy to come out of the academic perspective on UI/UX design designing exclusively to efficiency formulas and words in a glossary. Keep the user, the human, and their context in mind.
The DEA is withdrawing a proposal to ban another plant citing public outcry
Yes, I suppose this is the "correct" way. If my manager doesn't have a problem with my coworkers failures, then I'll just have to tolerate it too.
"We are going to have to rebuild within this wild-wild-west-of-information flow some sort of curating function that people agree to," Obama said at an innovation conference in Pittsburgh.
ScoreBig shuts down, leaving suppliers unpaid and customers with invalid tickets
> I think that people who disagree simply haven't done much interviewing

Absolutely. Last time I went through trying to hire people was about a year ago. Easily 90% of the applicants we saw were completely unqualified. You have to have a way to weed them out.
the farc only have around 10000 people in their ranks... that's .02% of the population... that is pretty small...

they only look larger due to their narco-wealth (in fact they are one of the wealthiest terrorist groups in the world) add the colombian government history of just ignoring the pleas of the poor and their remote location... and that's how they get away with this crap.
I think this is great comment, and I can really relate to a lot of it.

I especially liked this:

> Learn languages instead of a language and it'll click.

I started at 5 or 6 with Basic, then progressed to Object Pascal early on, then C, C++, PHP, Java and finally Javascript and C# - I believe this wide experience has served me well over my almost 30 years' of programming (Christmas I'm getting old!).

I think there is a time and a place for 'just get shit done, fast', as well as spending time building 'elegant' code. But, if anything, the compromise between these 2 is possibly the thing I struggle with most.
Sounds good to me. Let's hope this is not just a marketing move.
The housing problem in the bay area has nothing to do with space. There's plenty of space in most places, or at least enough room for greater density. Even as far out as Fairfield, you can see miles and miles of empty space, and yet all the stupid little houses are bunched up into a tiny little lot, surrounded by nothing but land.

The problem, as you said, is land use policy and regulations. All these rent control rules drive up the cost of building more housing, further constraining supply, causing even greater rent control... It's a downward spiral of epic proportions.

The true root of the problem is a lack of basic economic education. I've been viewing my voter election material, and there are countless politicians who freely admit that they've been "preserving open spaces", "preventing new construction and building" and even bragging about it! This tells you something about the general public: they don't understand (or believe in) the first thing about supply and demand. They just don't understand that more regulation leads to less supply, which leads to even higher housing prices.
> Not allowing the people who actually generate new knowledge to share in the financial benefits would run counter to this goal.

I think that tenure is itself pretty much the most awesome benefit possible: guaranteed employment for life. Do they really need more?
My favorites are the classic "The Design of Everyday Things" and "Microinteractions" (http://microinteractions.com/about-the-book/).
I think that I have become softer and harder. Harder in the sense that I have no tolerance for bullshit.

Softer in the sense that I want to foster an environment of respect. As a lot of the senior leadership that I've worked with has retired, I've noticed that the 30-40 year old crowd now is more brutal.
Instead of an expanding balloon, just use a flat piece of paper as your model of space-time (after dimensional reduction):

Due to conformal flatness of the FLRW metric, it's possible to represent the Hubble flow as vertical lines, the spatial surfaces at constant cosmological time as horizontal lines and light rays as straight lines angled at 45°. The geodesics for massive particles not following the Hubble flow however would be more complicated, but are of no particular interest.

The big bang happens at the lower edge of the paper, the upper edge represents t=inf. The observable universe is bounded by two light rays that meet at infinity. In our toy model with 1 spatial dimension, if an observer follows the Hubble flow along a vertical line, the number of observable galaxies will be proportional to the width of the intersection of the cone formed by light rays and the horizontal line representing space at the time when galaxies first formed.

As ASCII, it looks like this:

conformal time
^
| "us"
t=inf +------------x------------+
| /|\ |
| / | \ <------------ cosmic event horizon
| / | \ | (bounds observable universe)
| / | \ |
t=now +-------/----x----\-------+
| / /|\ \ |
| / / | \ <------------ light emitted by farthest
| / / | \ \ | visible galaxy as it formed
| / / | \ \ |
+--x----x----|----x----x--+ <---- time of galaxy formation
| /: : | : :\ |
|/ : : | : : \|
t=0 +--:----:----+----:----:--+---> comoving distance
: : : :
: |<------->| <--- currently visible galaxies
: :
|<----------------->| <--- asymptotically visible galaxies

Galaxies that are visible right now will continue to be visible forever in theory, but may become undetectable in practice due to increasing redshift. They will also not be seen to cross any 'edge of the universe', but instead appear to become fainter, redder and frozen in time.

As time goes by, we will continue to observe new galaxies being formed, which increases the total number of theoretically visible galaxies. In practice, redshift may again prevent us from doing so in practice.
Yes, we might always change someone: a friend, a spouse, an employee.

But that's a risk; depending on that is ill-advised.
I am considering pledging $250, to support this effort within my means, and to be able to try things out with a VM. But I see no details on how much RAM, computing power, and storage space will be provided.

Edit: If the VM provided is anemically underpowered, the platform will be little more than a curiosity for me.
> the study is based on the premise that there is lots of spoofing going on

That's fine, but you can't then claim the study as evidence of spoofing, since it was injected into the simulations explicitly.

> which they then compare to real data to test its accuracy, which they claim is 90%

The validation with real data was just comparing things like trade volume, volatility, autocorrelation, etc. They didn't put a specific number on it (the 90% accuracy mentioned in the abstract is about detecting HFT in simulated data). And they added in the spoofing after the validation.

There definitely is spoofing going on (some of my job involves trying to detect it), but I'm deeply skeptical of anyone who claims they can detect it accurately or quantify the amount. 92% accuracy for detecting spoofers in simulated data is insanely high, and makes me doubt the applicability to the real world.
As with all self-reported claims, take it with a grain of salt.

Among my own entrepreneurial friends, I often notice a difference between self-reported hours worked and actual hours worked. I also notice a strong under-representation of hours slept, as if not getting enough sleep is the key to becoming an ubermensch.

These aren't even dishonest people. I think there's just a lot of peer pressure in tech to brag about how much you work.
It's harder to learn than its competitors due to the needless mental overhead from all its flaws.

Consistent languages are easier to learn.
Like I said, the only reason to get married is the rights afforded to married couples by the government.

My ex and I are on great terms, and our divorce was mutual yet somehow still a huge pain in the ass.
All this talk of a 'two party system' is kinda nonsense. Yeah, first-past the post voting encourages the emergence of two main parties but there is absolutely nothing to prevent the emergence of a third party besides bad strategy. Neither the Greens nor the Libertarians (the two best-known alternatives) put any serious effort into getting anyone elected to Congress that I can see. That it's possible to get elected to Congress without the support of a major party is proved by the existence of independent representatives and senators. If they can get elected as individuals, there's no reason that they can't get elected as members of a minority party...but Congressional races are boring so neither party seems willing to invest much effort in doing so.

This cycle, Libertarian Gary Johnson was polling well enough that he had a prospect of getting into one of the debates (hitting 13% in several polls, with the threshold for inclusion in the Presidential debate being 15% - I don't approve of this arbitrary rule, but at least it's a known factor in advance. But then in a series of interviews he demonstrated how foolish he was - ignorant of Aleppo in Syria, a major global flash point for a few years now, unable to name a single foreign leader he admires even slightly, and finally giving an interview where he said he could go into the debates without saying a word and still improve his standing before sticking his tongue out at the reporter and performing an impression of Donald Duck (as best I can guess). The guy is just clown shoes and nobody has sidelined him this year except himself. As for his party conference, it was mainly memorable for one candidate for party chairman performing a strip tease on stage, presumably to win a bet or as a prank. Is it any wonder voters don't take them seriously? Jill Stein of the greens is little better and seems more interested in publicity stunts than promoting a platform or getting anyone else into Congress.

The real reason (IMO) is that if you seriously want to influence politics it is far more efficient to sponsor ballot initiatives in states that allow them and lobby in other states and at the federal level. Why waste money on getting someone elected when you can just buy off a politician from one of the major parties? Anyone who has enough money to actually underwrite a party already knows this and so has little or no incentive to spend years and multiple election campaigns trying to build a political platform, especially given that the Democrats and Republicans are quite willing to sell their principles so cheaply. the people with the political will have no money and the people with the money have no incentive.

It's not impossible, it just takes time. I estimate that with a starting pot of $5-10m and 10 years I could build a minority party in the US Congress. An even better prospect given the parlous state of the Republican party would be to simply drive a wedge into it after this election, subvert the least powerful side. adn just hijack the leadership after 5 years or so, which is basically what the Tea Party has done to the GOP.
From Marmite to the royal yacht, Britain is now a global joke
I can agree that php might not be the nicest or the fastest language, and I like to say choose the right tool for the job, but writing it off just because it's php is stupid.

A couple of months back there was this php sucks article about being looked down upon because you do php for a living. Php is the language people bitch about to feel better about themselves. Even within the php community symfony developers don't take drupal developers seriously. It's sad really and even I'm guilty of doing that. A little more respect for your fellow developers is all we need. It's like judging a book by it's cover. How would you feel if <insert your fav lang> was treated that way.

Php has a lot going for it. The community is very active and passionate, new things come out at a rate you can keep up with. You can easily get passionate about it if you engage in it.
A lot of interesting projects are (being) build with it and it is obvious that php won't disappear anytime soon.

If you have to work with php and bitch about it, make the effort and solve the problem you have with it. Contribute back to the community and experience the gratitude. You'll enjoy your work more.

So there are php people that care and they try to make the best of it. I don't think they consider it to be a garbage language. They are the ones that made php what it is today which is something totally different compared to what it was years ago.
Probably the reason is the same why CNN is not investigating this whole affair with people "taking the 5th", laptops destroyed, hard drives lost, etc.
But if it gets sent to the House, he won't be elected there. So the end goal is to send the vote to the House? What's the point of that? The sentiment that the American people were robbed was palpable in Bush v. Gore. How much worse will it be, whatever the outcome is, if the election goes to the House? The House putting in McMullin is so unlikely that I want to say it's impossible; even if most Reps wanted to, they'd be making their constituents extremely angry (except for those reps from Utah) and wouldn't survive re-election, if they even made it that far. It would be a crisis for our democracy and my belief is that there would be at least small amounts of bloodshed.

We're going to give Evan the benefit of the doubt and assume that throwing American democracy into legitimate chaos (not just a sideshow, like it's already become) is not his motive. So what is his motive?
Really nice, is it a shiny app? They are ridiculously easy to set up.
Barcode Scanner Powered by Google's Mobile Vision Api
I don't care about performance.
Unless we are speaking about orders of magnitude and my use case has an absolute need for performance.
If I only cared about performance I would write everything in assembly optimised for every specific architecture.
But strangely I'm much, much, much more productive writing in c#, Java, groovy, f#, ruby and whatever language is appropriate for what I need to do at a certain time.
For sure I won't start a new project using a language in which writing such abominations as accessing the database in the presentation layer is not even discouraged, but it is actually encouraged and taken as an example on HN in this thread.
Enjoy your marvellous php.
But please stop the bullshit that pushed a lot of people to use that franken-language rather than using a better approach.
I use it for scripting and as an embedded debugging language for other programs.

For instance I wrote a logging program that collects log messages sent by various sources via UDP, displays them in colours on the console and records them in different log files. It is also a HTTP 1.1 server that I use to monitor a few key data about the logs from a browser on an other machine.

The right way to use Forth nowadays is, in my humble opinion, as a template to build yourself your own interpreter that does exactly what you want (as long as you know how to do it ;-), because it has a very low barrier-of-entry implementation-wise.

The "Forth is good for embedded stuff" pitch becomes less and less true every year, because embedded micro-controllers become more and more powerful. Other small languages like Lua are becoming "good enough" on these and are more "user-friendly".

Extrapolating from myself I would say that those who stick with Forth are just liking it and/or like to have absolute control over their tools.
So you are blaming PHP's excellent backward compatibility. Why I am not surprised? :)