skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
So my point was actually about the specifics of picking up a language to do a new project, and then complaining about it. (Hence my example of writing a serious book in a language you don't know.)

I think you really go into superlatives here. It's not fair for you to say "15 seconds", for example. 15 seconds is how long you've been reading this comment.

(I just timed myself, okay maybe 10-13 seconds.)

I also think that "a few hours" is an exaggeration on your part. Let's pick a language you've never used - take Objective-C which is similar to C# and C, C++ which you've already listed, and I think you've never programmed in it, because if you had you would probably have listed it.

Okay, so now make a serious iOS app in Objective-C in "a few hours". As in, have one by this time tomorrow. See? It's crazy. That's not how it works.

Maybe the weeks and months and decades run together for you, but there is a huge difference between doing something for a few months or a year, or doing something for a couple of weeks as our author reports. I don't like his kind of blog posts, and it is a whole category - there is this whole type of blog post where you pick something you've never used, use it to do something new, and then complain about it, all within the space of your first week or two using it.

It strikes me as kind of ridiculous. Especially with a provocative title like "Elm is wrong." Literally, it's like Tolstoy writing War and Peace in Swahili, a language he didn't know, and then writing a blog post "Swahili is wrong" -- all within the space of two weeks of when he first learned Swahili. I might be exaggerating slightly, but I think my analogy holds. It's almost farcical.
It may be useful to understand where this error is coming from. Back when the theory of electrical current was developed, we had no good model of the atom. We had no idea about electrons, protons and neutrons, no idea about photons, quarks, nothing. Kirchoff developed his equations without knowing anything about electrons. When Ohm discovered his law, he knew nothing about electrons. Classical electromagnetism, in its entirety, is formulated without any knowledge of electrons (except with some of the late stuff that was developed in order to extend it to relativistic cases, but at that point we were already operating on "legacy code"). The modern idea of the atom, as we know it now, was developed more or less at the same time with classical electromagnetism; various theories about matter were being thrown around at the time, and for a long time, it was thought that electricity would be caused by some sort of charged fluid. Only beginning with the 1870s, at which time Maxwell was already revising his all-encompassing treaty, did the idea that it's all about particles really begin to take off.

The electrical charges in the classic theory of electromagnetism are not electrons, nor ions, nor any other particles that we know of. They're ideal models of "something" that carries charge, but they do not model all the inherent behaviour of electrons (e.g. the electrical charges of classical electromagnetism do not have any magnetic moments, unlike real-life electrons). They are somewhat like the point particles in kinematics, in that they capture an essential feature (electrical charge) of an object while dispensing with other features that are not essential for the study of some (but not all!) phenomenons.

It's ok to model electric current as "the flow of charge", as long as you don't give this model more physical meaning than it's due and attempt to equate the charges of classical electromagnetism with electrons.

Certain phenomenons can be studied within this frame: for instance, the motion of an electron's motion through static electrical and magnetic fields is generally (low enough frequencies, strong enough magnetic fields etc.) OK to do while equating the electron with the charge carrier of classical electromagnetism.

But back when the concept of electrical charge was elaborated, we knew nothing of electrons. The phenomenons gave enough clues for us to hypothesize that whatever "supports" electricity has some of the properties that "real" charge carriers have, but that's all there is to it.
>You've been duped.

True, but you could say that about nearly every politician that's been elected recently. At some point you have to vote for the person you agree with and just hope they will hold up at least some part of what they've promised.
When you say mass immigration, do you mean undocumented immigration, or even legal immigration?

Are you recommending we have less overall legal immigration?
Justice has been served.
Read this as "only allow people to vote who have the same opinion as me!". That's not how democracy works. You lost to the majority. Simple as that.
If we pause for a moment to contemplate how well educated, loving people end up building IEDs, blowing themselves up or operating large gas chambers, we realise this is not outside the realm of the possible.

We are all human and we are all subject to the same primal forces. It's our job to fight it.
I agree with everything you have said. Obama is a thoughtful type and a great orator. I'm sure he would have liked to enact some of the change he promised but he didn't. In many ways America regressed further under his watch and this is the outcome.
Food is abundant but still grows outside of cities. There's no particular reason to assume that genetic engineering companies are all based in cities. A city state arrangement is one I was thinking about a lot lately but it seems very hard to make it stable.
"I think alot of people feel like that, uh, America told them exactly - African Americans, Latinos, Muslims, you name it...Asians...I think alot of people tonight are feeling like, you know, [the] United States told me exactly what they think of me." - James Carville, after Trump's win.
You do realize we fought a civil war, right? And it's universally agreed that the people who were pro-slavery, against the female vote, etc were total bigots who deserved to lose as soon as possible.

The fact that the bad guys can hold out for a while before losing doesn't cease to make them the bad guys.
As someone followed this election from India - I'll compare 2014, India's Right-wing party election with this one , my thoughts:

* Ruling party tried to seek vote by projecting opposition candidate as evil, Instead of selling their own-accomplishment to the people. (Exactly the similar case with Current Indian PM in 2014.)

* US Main Stream Media is corrupt. They didn't understand they can't fool people anymore, thanks to social media. There is lot of way to reach out common-people using social media, rather than just MSM. IMHO, US media ran campaign to projected one candidate as very bad person. (Exactly same again, with Modi where virtually all media refute the claim 'Modi Wave' across the country in 2014). Intentionally came out fake poll reports.

* Result may look close, but I'm pretty sure, If there was fair trail of both candidates by MSM, Trump might have won by bigger margin than current one.

* Fear of minority : Once you become 'head of state'. Elected leader must adapt themselves to their new role with more responsibility. So If you found something insane statement during campaign - most likely they won't be implemented. - Its just way to polarize people behind one candidate.

* I think most people voted for Trump is fed-up whats going with-their political systems and corruption. Not necessarily agree with Trump on each & every thing he said during campaign. They might have thought, why not give him chance, if its not good. We can switch votes in 2020.

Ending note: In 2014, Tea-seller Modi was running against ruling PM (phd scholar 2004-2014). People saw his development and anti-corruption promises (yes there are some political gimmicks to polarize votes). People fedup with scams & corruptions from ruling party for last 10 years, thought Why not give him a chance? and the end result is massive 171,660,230 votes to get majority to form the govt. In these two years, he still popular, way better than previous 2 govt by well-educated PM. (Just yesterday he announced surprising move to scrap Rs 500 and Rs 1000 currency notes to eliminate black-money) . Media still trying hard to create fake fears among minority since they want their master to get back in power in next election. Country is largely peaceful & economy is growing. I hope same will be case with Trump too, he will focus on most important economic and development tasks. He wont/can't implement this controversial plan which may affect his development plans.
Aussie dev here with a similar story. I lived and worked in the bay area for a couple of years a few years ago. I wouldn't choose to go back there either, especially now.

And I have Australian friends in the bay area now who are reconsidering which country they want their tax dollars to go to.
Just curious, why is the concept of absolute majority not used a criteria? For example, to win an election in India, you require an absolute majority (if there are 3 candidates and A wins 40%, B wins 30% and C wins 30%, A is still not a winner because a total of 60% voted against A). I see it in this election and in the Brexit vote, a major decision is based on a simple majority with <5% difference.
If you can't be bothered to get documents from an employee and e-verify their employment eligilbity in 5 minutes on a web app, you shouldn't be permitted to run your business.
> Robotics is likely going to replace many of these jobs in the next 20y, which might bring back some industry into the West, ie more jobs but more sophisticated jobs.

US manufacturing output is trending upwards, while employment is going downwards[1]. If anything, robotics is going to eliminate many more jobs than it creates, at least in manufacturing. Look at the tech giants today- huge companies, revenue in the billions, and they employ much fewer workers to achieve that output than giant companies of past decades. This is a major driver of economic inequality, and hence populism. But a government or laws or a president cannot hold back technological progress.

If anything, in 20 years, we could witness the end of capitalism as we know it because we can produce more with less employment, assuming current tech trends continue.

[1] https://www.mercatus.org/publication/us-manufacturing-output...
@adventured:

Interesting graphs:

http://krusekronicle.typepad.com/kruse_kronicle/images/2008/...

https://ourworldindata.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/long-t...

The US ("west offshoots" in the graph, but south america can be mostly ignored until the later 20th century) grew faster then western Europe, but they only really diverged before WW1.

Europe never really recovered from the devastation that was WW1 until the 50ies.

WW2 helped the US out of a big dip though.
Definitely not the ceiling. I've been working here for five years and always earned more. Also if you're married they'll sum you and your partner's income and lower your taxes if your partner earns less. Good way to study or do non-paid work while the other earns for both of you.

Berlin is very liberal and open-minded, but learning Deutsch is a must...
That is a very interesting concept! The American politician system seems to have resisted change remarkably though; I do hope this recent change won't trigger that cycle.
So what if the tone is aggressive? It's a venting piece. It says so in the second paragraph. Who cares if people bother reading it? Where it mattered - the actual github request - the tone of the discussion is right on point.

People who ignore the point to come here and complain about the tone, also further detract from the point.

FWIW, I find it extra hilarious that, in the context of employment search, I would form an opinion based on how - or what - a person _vents_.
Can I ask if you have found any equivalent to the Elm Architecture in Purescript?

I have looked at Elm, and Purescript and now Bucklescript, but I have not yet seen, or wired up myself, something like the Elm architecture.

I should probably buckle down and learn the wiring I need myself, but I have been finding the typing a little tough.
London isn't on the coast. What you're looking at here is not coasts vs non-coasts even if American maps might make it look that way. It's cities vs everywhere else. It just so happens that in America most of the biggest/best known cities are on the coasts.
An important part of Clinton's campaign strategy and that of the Democrat establishment in general is to try and discredit and marginalise Republicans like Rubio. We know this from documents obtained by Wikileaks that talk about tactics like bringing into question Rubio's Republican credentials and support amongst Latinos while building up Trump and other joke candidates as credible opponents. We all know how well that turned out.
> Obama rode to power on change ticket and immediately abandoned it, wholesale.

He had two years where he had legislative power, and spent that time shoring up the US economy after the financial crisis and passing healthcare reform. Had he passed political reform instead he would have been accused of putting elite concerns before the practical things affecting ordinary people.

One of the problems in the US seems to be that the President has all the rhetoric of a ruler, but in fact only has power with Congress.

People invest an enormous amount of hope and effort into the federal system, but in fact it's mostly ineffective, if the two parties are at one another's throats no one is capable of action a majority of the time. The system is set up to rely on the states for action, but people move around so much the states aren't seen as worth the effort (because you might be taking a job on the other side of the country in a year or two). It's a system which doesn't really match up with how people live their lives.
> What if it actually came to that? If push came to shove and the interior decided to push a nativist, nationalist agenda, what if the coastal regions that benefit significantly from trade were to say "Okay, you guys can play with yourself, we're going to play with the rest of the world."

I think if it actually came to that, it would eventually mean war. The interior economy falls apart, coastal regions secede, the poor countries would inevitably be driven to war against the coastal regions out of desperation. Extreme nationalism would just make this more likely. No one should think this is a good idea.

Also, saying coasts are "well-integrated into the world economy", implying the rest of the country is not, is just a horribly myopic view of the world. They are only "well-integrated" because the government chose and planned that explicitly - globalization and free trade as an economic policy, removal of protectionism (e.g. NAFTA, etc) and heavy subsidies of the industries involved (especially tech, via military spending).

It didn't have to be that way - it isn't because tech, finance, whatever is more meritocratic or anything. With more sensible protectionism you could have international trade while still preserving your country's manufacturing base, allowing the rest of the country's economy to also be "well-integrated". But labor is expensive in developed countries, corporations want more profit, and our government doesn't particularly prioritize the working class.
Crimea - it's were russian navi is. The former soviet military harbors for Black sea were rented by Russia. When power changed in the Ukraine to be USA/NATO oriented Russia did everything to keep it's military presence.

As for Eastern Ukraine - I feel like Russia doesn't need it per se - just as distraction and zone of destabilization in order to protect Crimea.
Yet a significant portion of the hidden Trump voters were more anti-Hillary than happy about Trump. Sam Altman declared support for Hillary because he was anti-Trump; likewise people supported Trump because they were anti-Hillary. I believe if you have no identity politics affiliations, if you read WikiLeaks, it is challenging to keep supporting Hillary, unless you have strong beliefs that Trump is still the worse of the two.
In Europe simply buy a train ticket and go.

I am assuming however this is leaving the US for ... not-US locations

My suggestion would be to stay where you are, look for remote work opportunities that will give you the ability to losslessly change jobs until you found the work culture that suits.

And it also gives you opportunity to get involved in your local or state politics where you can make a genuine difference.

Just as Europe has a free-to-move labour force (for now!) the US has strong and increasingly independent States that look more and more like the engines of progressive change. California just approved marijuana for example.

Let the countries of the world deal with any changing trade and defence agreements. It's why they have diplomats.

NB - I am not meaning to be as patronising as I may be coming across
>how blacks were enslaved for hundreds of years by whites

You have no idea what you are talking about if you think this point is disputed by any majority of Republicans.

It's like saying, "'People should contribute to society' triggers all liberals."
In part at least, because two of those countries are NATO members and thus all other NATO members have a duty to protect them.
Which ones were right?

Here's a quote from Michael Moore's Trump victory prediction:
http://michaelmoore.com/trumpwillwin/

'And because this election is going to come down to just one thing — who drags the most people out of the house and gets
them to the polls — Trump right now is in the catbird seat.'

I'm wondering if most polls fail to take the above factor into account.
Okay, I'll grant your extended argument here. But I'll counter by saying that the same reasoning applies to Democrat rallies. This particular election there was violence and intolerance of opposing views at rallies for both parties. I recall Obama (in one of his best moments, in my opinion) cooling people off when they were getting heated with some lone old guy who was a Trump supporter. That was admirable. We need more of that.

But yes, the truth is that saying the reverse of most of your statements would get you in a lot of hot water at a Democrat rally. You see that right? If you went to a Democrat rally and said Trump was a better candidate than Hillary? That's not gonna fly. Or if you said that corporations should be allowed to contribute financially to political parties?

My main argument, I suppose, still stands. There's just an awful lot of intolerance going around these days. A truck load of it. We need to all own our individual intolerances and biases and still respect each other. We don't have to agree, but perhaps we could start with at least agreeing to hear each other out. Then we could discover where we're all coming from and why we want what we want, and how we can perhaps collaborate on building something mutually acceptable together.
> are not allowed to cultivate, maintain and respect our own (American) culture.

- Hollywood

- Pro Wrestling

- Super Bowl

- "World" series

- The Internet

- Silicon Valley

- Petro Dollars

- Big Cars

- Rock n' Roll

- Hip Hop

- The Iraq War

- The War on Terror

I could go on, and on.

A peculiar quirk of American culture indeed is, that not just do you get to cultivate your own culture. Everybody else has to participate as well.
It is a flexible E-ink screen, just like a paper. See more details ok official E-ink display website. http://www.eink.com/flexible.html
Peter Thiel's dreams have beocme a reality.
> "The rich make a lot more than the poor... and the GOP is promising more of that, not less, and the GOP won, so the 'it's the economy' model doesn't really fit."

Here's the thing with Trump, he held so many conflicting policy positions over the course of the election, and was held to account so little by the mainstream media, that Trump supporters could basically line up with whichever of his policies they liked the most. People can ignore promises like tax breaks for the rich when he's promising to bring jobs back to the US.

Also, as I said in another comment, this wasn't a pro-Trump victory, it was an anti-Clinton victory, and Clinton has been disastrous with the US economy. She had no compelling rebuttal regarding her support for NAFTA and TPP, the huge (political and economic) disasters of the Iraq war, and had very close ties to Wall Street deregulation that was at the core of the 2008 recession. Clearly business as usual was not going to cut it, and Trump was boosted by that discontent.
I have some similar thoughts when trying out Elm.

Every function that a language support/does not support shapes the ecosystem, and that is arguably as important as the language itself. With Elm, decision making is done by a small group of people and they can be quite opinionated.

I started when 0.15 is out, amazed by how beautiful FRP can be, then it is gone now. I cannot add / remove fields from dictionary, I cannot have multi-way if. My code base is still simple, so I can get around it, but I really enjoyed the good old FRP style. In JS, you can definitely choose your favourite frameworks, but in Elm, there is no alternative, there is only a single HTML framework `elm-lang/html`, if they decide to drop FRP, you cannot escape! This also means choosing Elm is also choosing to follow Evan, you are betting on a person.

I hope things getting better someday, we will have a standard JS interop that allows people to make their own 3rd party frameworks in Elm. Competition makes things better.
He's accused frequently of having overly Hindu-nationalist tendencies.

In particular, there were anti-Muslim riots in Gujarat while he was in charge that he didn't do enough to prevent and/or condemn.

For the record, all my information has come from The Economist. I'm not Indian or an India expert.
Yes that might be true - the issue is enforcement which is is less than rigorous.
Trumps treatment of women in the past makes my skin crawl, as an individual I think his behavior on that count is despicable. But if I were given the option of Hillary or Trump I'd vote Trump.

I might be wrong but I've not heard him say anything that is racist. No doubt there are some that are supporting him because they're racist, that doesn't mean all are. On that note I would love someone to prove me wrong and show me a clear example of Trump actually being racist.

I'm a conservative Christian. As a conservative, the left look down on me and assume there is only ignorance fueling my world view. There are issue like abortion, that to me are like the holocaust. I know most don't agree with me on that, and I can understand that they don't see a fetus as a life, I get it. But imagine for a second that you were firmly convinced that a fetus was as much a life as a new born. Things like that will drive you to vote Trump despite hating some of his actions.

The left also treats Christians with disdain. You have to get people on side if you want them to vote for you. Not tell them they're idiots.

While I don't agree with them some see gun rights as fundamentals to their freedom. You can't just tell these people were going to restrict guns, you have to get them to believe that it's for the best. Not tell them they're idiots. Then call them racist sexist bigots when they don't vote your way.

Immigration in the states is not in a good way, having so many people living illegally is not good for anyone. Trump might sound harsh but at least he is willing to tackle the problem (even in a way I'd not go for).
As Iranian student, this scares the shit out of me.

With Rohuni we had a little stability, but with this idiot guy Trump, our hard liners got what they wished for.

Now ordinary people and educated people in Iran will get pressure from both side.

Oh god, I miss Bernie Sanders.