skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> And ignorants enforce this lies, by repeating that "coal power plans routinely kill orders of magnitude more people than nuclear plants".

We can enumerate everyone who has been killed in a nuclear plant accident since the plants themselves do not emit any radiation or pollution when they are generating electricity. Nuclear power only has the problem of safety (keep bad accidents from occurring) and waste disposal, while coal plants pollute continuously, and emit much more radiation than a nuclear power plant (and even its waste).

The coal plants in China do not have any sophisticated environmental features like the ones in the west. Additionally, the burn much dirtier coal (mined in China) than the much cleaner coal that can be mined in say, West Virginia or Australia.
The best legitimate criticisms I've seen are here: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RNFesa01llk

Basically expansion and contraction as well as just plain vulnerability of running a vacuum make it extremely difficult to do practically. The phrase he uses, "all the problems of space travel except in a gun barrel" is a pretty accurate description of the issue. Any loss of vacuum will almost guarantee loss of life. No realistic demo has been done even on a small scale as of yet.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12795332
is it possible to be a blind marketplace for products without liability? like ebay? but without the auction part?

if it is, I wonder how amazon can transition into having ebay levels of liability, and what that would entail.
HTTP Headers Forwarding in Microservices
Great initiative! Are you considering setting up a blog / github page / anything to keep track and coordinate the effort?

I'm asking because though I'd love to help I know I won't be able to commit to it full-time. So it would be great to be able to follow up and get an idea of where the project is going, what areas it is tackling, etc.

Also, maybe a "Show HN" could help spreading to a wider audience whatever you set up.
"But I know of no scientific studies actually backing up the (sometimes implicit) claim that this types-first methodology leads to better languages, from the point of view programmer productivity."

So here's my problem, maybe I am using Haskell wrong, and somebody can give a good answer (FYI - I am big fan of Haskell, but I am still much more efficient in Python).

Let's say I write a library, I annotate all the functions with types, so I give it a nice API, and then what happens.. I realize I should have used a different type for this parameter in this library. For instance, a type class instead of normal type. But boy, it's like everywhere. Or it's a third party library and I can't really change the type signatures. I just wish sometimes that I could just "forget" the types temporarily and just borrow the existing logic, and then reintroduce different types, type check, done.

To be fair, Haskell has potential solution for this type of problem - type inference. But the thing is, once you write the (expected) type signatures into your program (which is sometimes needed to actually help the type inference, and it's also useful as a documentation), they are always there, and sometimes, they obstruct.

So I guess I wish there was a tool with which I could manage type information in the program in a lot more dynamic way than I currently do. That would, IMHO, close the gap to the dynamic languages.

What about making every type into a type class, would it do the trick? But how would the concrete type be specified, then? Would the compiler pick it?

(Maybe it's obvious, but let me point out the connection of this question to lambda calculus. I can have two functions in typed lambda calculus which are different, because they have different type signatures, but their actual semantics is identical (provided they get arguments of correct type); or in other words, if we convert both into untyped lambda calculus, we get identical functions. So the question is, why cannot we somehow reuse code from the first function, why we have to define the same code twice with different type signature?)
Obviously the number 1 thing is having an empire.

Netherlands and Portugal had an empire in Africa and Asia. The commerce with them and north of Europe(via the Hanseatic League) is what made Netherlands the richest country per capita.

North America was created under totally different circumstances than South America.

For instance, Spanish and French went to Louisiana but could not control the Mississippi river. It was a very hard place to live filled with Mosquitoes that transmitted illnesses that killed most people.

France exchanged that for a small piece of land(Guyane), and it was a good deal at the time.

That this place could later become one of the most fertile places on Earth is only possible because of lots of scientific discoveries that happened later in time, like the combustion engine making possible moving enormous amount of land(creating dykes), DDT killing the mosquitoes, railroads for transporting the grain and the capital generated being reinvested in further development.

We could not extract political narratives for comparing 20th century empires to 15th.

Most people used in the West conquest to native population came from rail roads. Rail roads did not exist before 1850, way later to Spain and Portugal starting to lose territories in America.
There should be government organization currently responsible for data security. Unfortunately, with the proposed leadership options for the White House, I don't think this will be a priority. The FCC is too concerned with rationing out the electromagnetic spectrum. I doubt UL and CE has enough resources to step up here.

For the device makers who want to provide a secure interface to their cloud servers, I think platform and infrastructure providers should set out an easy to adopt standard that any device maker can follow. The expectations on getting a device to market is already so high that small companies typically do not invest in data security.

The incentive to adopt the security best practices could come from retailers. Retailers who only stock products with this standard would save on returns / lawsuits. In the coming year, DDOS attacks are the least of their worries if hackers can commandeer devices that see into people's homes and monitor people's lives.
You can buy directly from E Ink holdings or PDI without the 50% profit margin from retailers. They come with dev kits too so you can make it into a monitor.

Our software guys would like to work on a E Ink dev screen for software developers who stare at a screen for most of the day.
While not VR, Wii Fit has a skateboarding game for the balance board. Someone might know of a way to combine it with a headset.
You missed the part where sellers misrepresent sizes on their products, so you expect to order a human sized rack shelf (usually due to misrepresentative pictures) but it's the size of your foot.
> (And before you can thinking about paying rents or whatever, if you are in the top tax bracket, enjoy paying 13.3% state income tax, which, after Federal tax, is a staggering 22% of your income.)

If the tax rates were less, wouldn't employers just pay employees less? What's the point of calling out the high income tax rates?
There should be some kind of legality issue with selling something that you have reason to believe is falsely marked with safety approvals, no?
Hot swapping RAM has been possible for a very long while in software, though originally built for servers. Apple, with their tight control over the hardware, could likely have also modified the power management controller and whatever other hardware that needed modifying to pull something like that off.
Here you go. https://webrecorder.io/anomie/paywall/20161030221559/http://...
To be honest, that's precisely what had been on my mind.

Did you know Vinge is himself a computer scientist? IIRC, there's a point in A Deepness In The Sky where its implied that the protagonists' interstellar ramscoop ships run a descendant of Unix.
Gradual typing is awesome, though relatively hard to implement.

At one point you do have to make a decision though. If you come from a static type system, the compiler rejects programs if it can't proof their type correctness. Dynamic languages that introduce statics types typically do it the other way 'round: in case of doubt, allow the program at compile time, and possibly throw a type exception at run time.

You can try to make separate decisions in separate scopes, but then you have problems at the boundaries between such regions.

The point I'm trying to make is that gradual typing comes with its own complexity, both on the implementation side and through cognitive load for the programmer.
We can go around circles for days. The fundamental issue still stands. You are losing time and spending effort working around OS mismatches because your dev machine and your production servers do not line up. Adding a staging server moves the problem one level higher. You will still spend however long it takes to fix whatever mismatch was caused by the differing environments.
If you use Tor the same way you have used a regular browser there could be an 'image' of your online habits to compare with (not applicable within the darknet).

But if the user doesn't use it in the same way, the likely attack in most cases is traffic correlation. This works by having large visibility over entry nodes and visibilty over the final destination (ex: a website). Given enough activity and time you can by process of elimination deanonimize the user's ip.
You can easily send products to Amazon to have them fulfill the sales with their shipping/warehouse network.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html/?nodeId...
Thanks. My development machine is a 2015 13" MBA/8GB. I'm pretty satisfied with it as a development box. (Though I do need to figure out some performance issues in my integration test suite). Of course, it sounds like your development needs are quite different than mine :)

I wonder what the next round of iMacs will look like. If you're looking at a desktop system anyway, perhaps they'll be available with larger memory options. As I understand it, the memory limitation on the new MBP is due to the chip choice, which in turn was chosen with energy efficiency in mind. That shouldn't be a driving factor in the iMac. But then again, when will the next rev of iMacs come out?

I hope you're able to find a system that suits your needs!
While that approach could technically work, in practise the support calls will be very lengthy and eat up all of your profit and then some.
Skylake support isn't mature enough in Windows either, though.

However, I have two devices with a Skylake processor and neither have on Linux (as of recently, there were some minor ones with bad power states on cores). One of them dualboots Windows, and windows has some random weird issues with Skylake and BSODs randomly (but rarely). Sometimes it "wakes up" into BSOD.
I think it is different. In south American there was usually enough chaos for the US to march in an pretend they were restoring order. It would be more difficult to to so in countries with long solid democratic traditions and which are known to be very stable.

The US always relied on finding some extremists or sympathetic party which they could manipulate to their ends.

You can't topple people in a vacuum. In Iran they could rely on existing support for the Shah of Iran. In Chile they could rely on right wing military people like Pinochet.

There has to be some sort of chaos to exploit.

Or perhaps there are way in which the US could manufacture a crisis, but I think US governments today as simply nicer than in the past.
I've not looked much into it but I've seen Libravatar, which claims to allow for federated avatar hosting

https://www.libravatar.org/
>Without the church, there would have been far less research (mostly happened within the church, mostly by order of the Vatican)

You would have to prove that such curious people didn't gravitate towards the church instead of other place because _they were already_ financing such research, meaning, that the research wouldn't have happened in another place/group if the church didn't exist.

The best place to do science is one which takes nothing for granted, in which people is free to doubt event their own existence if their ratinalizations lead them to believe so; that's pretty much the opposite of religion and the church, where there is a bunch of dubious "facts" that cannot be doubt, such as "There is a God, God is smart, There was Jesus, He made some miracles".

The other thing is that each single scientist that the Church killed may have discovered something even bigger had they not been killed, perhaps setting back science for decades or even centuries; and an even worse outcome was fear, because they inserted fear from then on in all researches of the same subject, for example I wouldn't have dare to say the earth gravitates around the sun the years after Galileo was killed; so you would have to "calculate" if what they did for science was bigger than what they did against it.
I totally get this.

This is also personal to me, in that I personally moved out of CA to NV because of the cost of living. If it was just as cheap to live in CA, I would live there, with my friends.

I get that this can be an emotional issue, but while economics may be callous, so is the harshness of reality. The same could be said for the cost of health care, and other rising costs that people are struggling to pay.

But denial doesn't help either. In the end, you end up racking up a lot of debt, then you move/declare bankruptcy/become homeless anyway.

In the end, I find facing the facts, and acting on them a much more reliable strategy for success. I feel too many people think they are "entitled" to these things, instead of taking reasonable actions to improve their situation.
It's the same here in the US. People just don't always know to look for "Ships from and sold by Amazon" under the item's initial description.
Edit: my comment below was uninformed, I see that Mituharu's port is up-do-date with Emacs 25, which is close enough to upstream for me.

Original:

Interesting! However, how closely does it follow upstream for... every other feature?

I'm using GNU Emacs because I've basically standardized my use of it across platforms. Gone are the days of XEmacs vs Emacs and all the small differences between them, and GNU Emacs' development pace has nicely picked up over the past 2-3 years since Stallman stepped down as maintainer.
Regarding the litte call-out to Rust here, while it's true that we have a strong type system, we also aren't doing very much _innovative_ work on type systems. And in many regards, we're not even that advanced by the standards of Haskell or Idris.

The "production-oriented" bit is important as well; we _need_ those features to achieve our goals, the type system features aren't just there because we like type systems. And we've resisted doing so; the most classic example being higher kinded types. People have been asking for years, and they would be useful, but there's a lot of stuff that would also be useful, and we're focusing on them first. We're very wary of adding type system features just because we can.
I would certainly think so/wish so/assume so.
How to level up your writing in 5 steps
Right, but that doesn't mean they combine your items with their own items, I hope.
> Another thing, remember those frayed Apple power cables we “enjoyed” in the past… no problem now, just replace the USB Type C cable, there’s no need to buy a whole new PSU.

Had Apple not chosen to hard-wire the PSU end of that power cable and instead made it pluggable into the PSU, you also would not have needed a whole new PSU due to a frayed cable.
One of the best docs describing how to write an editor I've ever read was the old documentation for the lcc-win32 compiler. It touches on the practical aspects of developing an editor (and the pipelining compiler as well.) Some understanding on how the Windows API works might be of value for the editor part, but the compiler part should be understandable to anyone:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_S7gv6UGLAKuo9g1tNoNbU2O...

(I won't go into jus how hard it was to find this version of the docs and extract the file on a non-Windows computer. Luckily I just did that a few months ago for unrelated reasons!)
This of course assumes the rent for older places goes down, but it seems like rents are kept artificially high (well the last person paid X) and almost never go down for a region.

Over time I agree, that economics will take over, as long as there aren't even more people wanting to move in, but that doesn't seem likely.
Here's an idea: Ditch the vacuum and instead put a mixture of 80% helium and 20% oxygen at half sea level pressure. This way you'll get a breathable atmosphere that is five times less dense than air and causes as much less drag. Imagine Teslas hurtling 155mph through these tunnels using only as much energy as if they were traveling at 85mph.
I had thought the concept for hyper loop was that the infrastructure cost would be cheaper because it is a tube that does not require power or rails.

But it does seem like saying instead of two rails that allow for deviations both horizontally and vertically and the vehicle stays on top, then now we need a really nicely round tube with a different set of requirements that must be maintained over hundreds or thousands of miles.

I guess if hyperloop teams are still in the phase of proving stuff out and they need money then the money they will get will still probably be tiny compared to what it would cost to actually build a real full blown system when you factor in all of the costs of buying land and permits and construction companies.
...until you open Vim and find out that Ctrl-V doesn't paste.
Hi, I think perhaps you're reading into the non-exhaustive list of example alternatives to traditional developer roles more than intended.

I don't see anything in my comment to suggest that "QA is dumping ground for failed devs", nor was that my intention.

In fact, I wouldn't label anyone a "failed dev". Rather, the idea behind my post was to find a role that better fits that person's skill set and experience. My apologies if this was unclear.
Considering that the operators must actively keep the backend alive and support the users, it's more likely they abandoned it for whatever reason.
Why would loss of vacuum necessarily result in loss of life? I would expect loss of vacuum to result in sudden deceleration, but not with a deadly level of force.
Adult wet wipes are clogging the pipes
It tells you it's fulfilled by Amazon. They're referring to the shipment. A lot of Prime members don't buy non-Prime/Amazon shipped items because of the shipping delays. I myself am one of them.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12832764
My argument is not logically inconsistent, but it may be a bit tricky to see why.

Firstly, I did not argue that quality is a pure function of potential profit. I said there's no profit motive to make desktop Linux better than it currently is (my view is that desktop Linux has been at a pretty constant level of quality for the last decade, which I'm sure some will argue with, but that's been my experience). That's a slightly different argument which I'll elaborate on in a moment.

Secondly, the fact that Macs ship with open source software doesn't invalidate my point. The popularity of MacOS X amongst developers can largely be summed up as "it's UNIX but with large parts replaced with proprietary components". What's left is whatever wasn't relevant to the consumer/pro-designer market segment, mostly a collection of command line tools. The other open source stuff (Apple's own code) was very much directed by the profit motive and open sourced secondarily, as a part of a product strategy.

There are two problems with the volunteer/subsidised-developer model that shine through when using desktop Linux. And in case you think I'm a clueless idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about, I've used desktop Linux for many years and even did contribute open source work to it about 15 years ago (I had patches in a few well known desktop projects). Eventually I became disillusioned because of these two main flaws:

1) Volunteers avoid boring work i.e. fixing bugs in other people's software.

2) Subsidised developers and volunteers lack any incentive to discard flawed ideologies and convictions

The second is the most important. The first problem can be addressed through Red Hat style cross subsidisation. The second results in massive, glaring weaknesses that developers rationalise as strengths rather than swim against established dogma.

Some examples of crap that is simply not tolerated in desktop operating systems built by people seeking profit but is/was often rationalised away as a strength in Linux: the audio server situation, completely messed up software distribution model, lack of support for proprietary kernel drivers, flaky backwards compatibility, general hostility to proprietary userspace apps, a bizarre insistence that anything important be written in C, refusal to work with any kind of content industry that wants DRM ... lots of policies that Linux users have just learned to accept as futile to argue with that Apple and Microsoft don't have the same hangups about. And the end result is, guess what, Macs just work a whole lot better.

I'm painting with a broad brush. The profit motive is just an incentive, a nudge, it's not an iron law. Apple and Microsoft have their own weird ideological hangups, especially in recent years, and they could really use a whole lot more competition. The Linux community has overcome entrenched attitudes a few times in the past - GNOME 2 and systemd are good examples of that. But overall the Linux community suffers far from more self-inflicted wounds that they're psychologically incapable of changing and without any financial incentive to do so, these things just fester for decades.
This might just be /g/ but I always get a lot of flak for running Gnome 3, other users like to point out how much screen real estate it wastes with padding, however that's the main reason I'm using it.

I'm sick to death of XFCE and KDE setups with poor proportions and crazy alignment issues, I don't want an interface that is spatially hyper-compact, I want one that looks pleasant.

I mean Christ, you can't even vertically align elements in XFCE Panels, the whole thing has an aversion to aesthetics.
Multics Emacs: The History, Design and Implementation: http://multicians.org/mepap.html
Select means working with a mouse? Thanks, but no thanks. Also, where would a middle button be on a trackpad?
"The big question now is about jobs. There's a lot of jobs in SF, and not a lot of jobs in small affordable towns, and people need jobs."

This is ameliorated to some extent by the increased feasibility of telecommuting. If you can telecommute, then you can work from almost anywhere.

Unfortunately, there are still prices to pay for telecommuting, even if your workplace allows it. It's not for everyone. I have a friend who did it for a long time, and they got regularly passed over for promotions vs people who worked in the home office, but they got to live in a much more beautiful and much cheaper place than SF. Some people can't concentrate when they work from home. Some miss having coworkers they can socialize with in-person, and so on. But if you can swing working remotely, and don't mind the downsides, then it can be a much saner and more affordable way to go.