skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> The clean break of 3 and the sanity it brings to the language is undeniable.

Well, I can't deny they broke it, but sanity is pretty deniable. Python has always been a dynamic language, and one of the core mantras was "there should be one obvious way to do it" (in contrast to Perl). All the new type annotation stuff and the multiple ways to handle string formatting are steps in very weird directions. Maybe they should make a Python version 4 to clean some of that mess up.
Thanks! This came at the perfect time. I just started working through learndatalogtoday.org plus doing my own DataScript practice in Clojure. I just ran all your examples without a hitch.

After working through learndatalogtoday I'm going to try translating "A Beginner's Guide to SQL" (http://www.sohamkamani.com/blog/2016/07/07/a-beginners-guide...) into DataScript. I don't think I'll totally "get" Datalog/DataScript until I get through that. If anyone has done something similar I'd love to see it. I'm not finding many good introductory tutorials for DataScript.
Data Structures in Python, Series 2: Stacks/Queues
Amazon seller here- Amazon Vine costs something like 4k per SKU. That makes it dead to most sellers.
There's an alternate feedback loop. As more people drive electric cars, demand for oil drops and decreases the price of gasoline, making gasoline cars more economical.

I predict a bifurcated market: Cars wind up as electric while light trucks (and their large SUV brethren) stick to fossil fuels.
So the point in an economy with underutilized resources money printing does not necessarily translate money printing to inflation directly. More importantly, the US has carried out a huge money printing scheme: QE. The federal reserve bought a couple trillion of US debt de facto reducing the amount of outstanding debt. What I am arguing for is QE with a higher tolerance for inflation.
Error on your homepage: "our's" should be "ours". :)
> If you can't charge overnight, you really shouldn't have an electric vehicle.

That's true now, but may not be so in a few years if aluminum-air battery technology continues to improve. Aluminum-air batteries have much higher energy density than lithium ion, but they cannot be electrically recharged [1] so when they are out you have to swap them.

The idea is that you build car with both a small lithium ion system and a large aluminum-air system. Lithium ion has higher power output, so you want that to actually drive the vehicle. You use the aluminum-air to recharge the lithium ion, to extend the range.

Current experiments with this approach add about 1200 miles to the range of the car compared to a pure lithium ion system.

If starting from full on both batteries you got 1400 miles, that would be enough to let a lot of city drivers go a month between having to go have the aluminum-air batter swapped out in the worst case where they are not able to do any plug in charging. That would be quite feasible for many people, assuming that there was a battery swap place within reasonable distance.

[1] In other words, you cannot recharged them by forcing a reverse current through them like you do normal rechargeable batteries. They essentially have to be rebuilt with new anodes, and the old anodes become scrap for recycling.
You'd probably like this then:

https://graphicallinearalgebra.net
>>> ...to checking that the technical prerequisites are in place to ensure that doctors' and lawyers' files are secure...

Forget the privacy issues. That a government is inspecting the safeguards of lawyers is something to applaud. I;m on a bunch of ABA committees that constantly discuss the ridiculous state of security at most law firms. Most US states require that lawyers,in short, "try". So long as some modicum of effort is put into securing client secrets the average law firm won't hear anything from their bar associations.

(Yes, I said most! Most firms are actually very small, without the budget even for a full-time IT person.)
I hope you are exaggerating. Otherwise I don't think I want to be on the same highway as you either.

People like you are a hazard on the road. Driver fatigue is a real thing - and saying you can go 8 hours without stopping isn't a testament to how awesome you are - it's a testament to how little you care about others sharing the road with you.

Some people think they have super-human reflexes, or are immune to fatigue, or have trained themselves to task with a phone and driving. Most of these people are wrong. Chances are, you are just an ordinary driver - and there is nothing wrong with that.

I'm more than willing to admit I'm an average driver - and so I will take breaks, or forgo using the phone, or drive slower to compensate for that. Yes, sometimes I do drive poorly (sleep deprived, stressed, or in a rush) - but I'm never going to claim I can go 8 hours without a break. That's going a bit far.
Maybe we can get one of those foil crisper trays that microwave pizzas come with, stick it behind Mars.
http://medium.com/p/ce5bd6e92c0e is "Mentifex on Trump Ponzi Madoff Vesco Bilko".
I have a work phone for that purpose, currently. When I took the position, it was made clear that there would be occasional times that I'd need to work odd hours, and that my employer was going to pay for a method to contact me.

We're changing management though, and in the new management's eyes, my position doesn't need to be contacted outside of work hours, so they're taking away the phones. Outside of an occasional pre-declared odd schedule, I won't have to deal with my job during my own time.

If someone takes a position where it's clearly expected that they'll need to work off-hours, and they fight against that, that bothers me. It's an inconvenience that they've accepted as part of taking the position. The reverse applies too; if it isn't clear to me that a position I take will expect a certain amount of work outside of pre-agreed upon hours, I'll resent when they start piling them on.
I'm right there with you. I don't care how good you are at programming, you are never going to have people jumping down and screaming about it. I miss those days so much.
Zoning laws making everything standard and boring and unlivable is a specifically American problem.
> It's not that it helps in a particular way (though more on that below), it's just that starting with Python 2 now necessarily leads to rewrites later on. While you can see packages not supporting Python 3 (there are fewer and fewer of those), in the future you will see the opposite, some project already announcing end dates for their Py2 support (IPython to give an example).

So, there's no benefit to Python 3, but we should all migrate to it anyways? You think Python 2.7 will die, but trust me as soon as the PSF abandons it, someone will swoop in and become the new defacto supporter. For many of us, stability is a feature, and the fact that 2.7 won't change in gratuitous ways is super attractive.
There are definitely some people here who espouse the view that the technological changes will certainly create new jobs that replace the ones that disappear and there is no worry about unemployment going up. I think they are in the minority though and not really parody-worthy.
They can't log your browsing history if you use TOR.
1. Less disruption. Most software is already installed to /usr.

2. Installing all software to /usr means that /usr can be made read-only when not installing/upgrading software. This isn't possible if installing to the root, as directories like /etc and /var have to be left writable.
That Treasury is vastly safer than a condo, which fluctuate significantly more than a standalone structure and often has dramatic increase in fees over time. Further renters can move to a new building every few years for minimal costs.
This will take time, but I think it's right. If you are charging your car overnight, the only time you'll need to charge mid-trip is on long-distance trips. If you're driving 10 hrs, you'll need to take an hour-plus break sometime in the middle of it regardless.
Ride sharing could also mean fewer vehicles on the road and, crucially, taking parking spaces.

Today, even if I had a car, I would not use it. Why? Because there is no place to park.

The last couple times I tried driving a car at night, I spent double the travel time, just crawling around the streets near my house until I could find an open parking spot. After the last time, I vowed: never again.

With self-driving, it gets better. When driving is a monetary transaction and human-powered transportation is free, then I expect that people will feel less impulsive about just taking a quick drive. With other necessary trends in human-scale urbanism, I expect that means the small children will just have to bike themselves to their friends’ places.
lisper, nearly everything you just mentioned is contained within the sphere of computation or information science.

And this:

> Genome sequencing

is not a product. It doesn't do anything useful by itself. There are only 16 new biotech drugs approved each year. I am unaware of any cures for Alzheimers or other popular affliction. It is also a side effect of computation and not an advance in biological science on its own merit. No fast computer, no sequencing.

This is why the Technology Stagnation Hypothesis is a serious one.

It says there have been almost no advances outside of computation since '73. Which matches the plateau in real wages in the West. Eroom's Law is also a symptom of it.

As I see: the world massively improved from the late 1600s to the 1970s. Then improvements continued in computation and halted in almost every other area of development.

> many (most?) people are still convinced that we're on the wrong track

What I am saying is far from anecdotal.

> We're in the middle of the longest stretch of world peace in history.

We have already passed what I believe to be an inflection point.

You are correct about violence until the year 2007.

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/03/20/breaking-a-...

Now we're heading consistently in the wrong direction.

Same with health:

"Taken by itself, it could just be a random fluctuation from one year to the next," said Elizabeth Arias, a demographer with the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics. But the data, which was released Wednesday, also showed that Americans collectively have lost momentum when it comes to greater longevity. Life expectancy at birth has remained virtually stagnant for the nation since 2010."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2016/0...

tldr; Not all is roses. Past trends were real and important and are not continuing. I make a similar rant here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12121172

I fully accept that we've had it good for a long time lisper, I've read my history, it's not that I'm unappreciative.
That work requires government initiative and investment. Many of the depressed areas keep voting for politicians who are convinced government doesn't work and they are determined to prove it. Thus, the labor force remains depressed instead of fixing the obscene number of infrastructure issues in the rust belt.

Can you imagine if they spent the next 4 years spending some money to fix up the cities to make them attractive to young people? It might bring new investment, jobs and life to the area.
I recommend checking the review analysis on [1] before making a purchase on Amazon.

[1] www.fakespot.com
Ah, thanks for the quick explanation.
I don't understand you try to characterize money printing with runsway inflation. For one I am
Not arguing for unlimited money printing I am talking more about QE style money printing. You don't continue pumping money into the economy if it's already at full capacity and you have reached your inflation target. In fact the United States has printed trillions of dollars through QE but what we experience right now is a very far from runaway inflation. What I am saying is perhaps we need higher inflation to get full employment. I also don't think a 4% target is exactly Venezuela levels of inflation.
headless machine with a low-wattage i5, 32g of ram, evo ssd, and an r9 200 gpu. I can leave it on 24/7 and ssh in from either my gaming desktop or my ultra light laptop or my android tablet. gradle / java / Android builds take about 12s on a warm package cache; the process is still storage limited, not cpu. the gpu has more than enough grunt to prototype and test ML apps. plenty of memory to keep a full ngnix / jetty / Maria / memcache running for client demos and still work on other stuff.
From May 2016
If you really want to run faster, you should try a new language. 30-40% for multiprocessing is nowhere near the benefit you'd get from a single threaded implementation in C, C++, Java, Rust, Ocaml, Go, or even JavaScript or LuaJIT. Those runs between 10 and 1000 times faster (1000% - 100000%) than Python.
Agreed about the "many holes". Furthermore on the models

But the bottom line is this. Most jobs aren’t created by private, corporate investment, so raising taxes on corporate income won’t affect employment.

This seems to be conjuring a whole new economic model out of thin air. How can it be the case that all of the models are wrong and that this model is right? I'm not saying it's wrong or right, but the preceding argumentation is not enough to support this line of thought.
> designed to live 60-100+ years

Really? That's what they design them for? That seems extremely short-sighted. What is supposed to happen in 60 years? Why were medieval structures able to last hundreds o f years but we can't do it now? Are new York's hundred year old sky scrapers due for being torn down now? I don't understand why anybody would think that's a good idea besides the fact that it'll be your grandchildren's problem and you won't have to deal with it.
This is the only compelling reason I've seen to switch to Python 3.
Addictive Games
In my heyday, when Facebook was amazing, I had between 2-3K "friends."

Since then I've whittled it down to about 27.

I get maybe a handful of notifications a week. Much better.
One day there will be conversion kits to replace the gas motor with electric. Maybe that will exist in time.
They use LSO around here for same day and it's been pretty unreliable. On the bright side I've gotten a few months of prime and about $100 in credit back.
> I personally feel the evidence is more on my side than Brin's.

Sometimes the evidence is so obvious, we don't even see it. I – and most people frequenting HN – have the fortune to be living in a time and place of 70+ years of peace. That's a "black swan" event when viewed from history, and institutions & political leaders quite possibly have contributed to it.

The same could be said about the economy, civil rights and science.

But even if you disagree with that, there's a difference between "they're all corrupt and idiots" and "they failed". It's quite unlikely that we manage to systematically elect people with a below-average IQ, or below-average moral standards. Therefore, it'd be more constructive to assume good faith and consider that some of the problems are actually hard to solve.

Fundamentally (in discussions such as this), this would require a bit of ethical behavior itself. First among them: Consider the best possible version of your opponent's argument. I. e. nobody is suggesting a return to a King <-> serf relationship model.
It's a little more complicated than that. This was mostly a reaction to Pakistan courting the US. Note also that India was first a founding member of the non-aligned movement, which the US was not pleased about. US-India relations improved during the 1962 Sino-Indian war when the US countered Chinese aggression at any cost. They then deteriorated again when the Nixon administration openly supported Pakistan in the 1971 Bangladesh liberation war.
Ask HN: Question for those who have paid business or side projects?
I want to start my own company one day. As many folks here have already been through that experience, I would love to know from you --

1. How did you come up with the idea that's making money?

2. How did you validate your idea?

3. How long it took for you to bring in money?

4. How did you manage marketing?

5. How did you manage daytime job and commute?

6. How do you handle taxes and liability protection?
I don't think we knew about Inktomi at the time, but it certainly was a possibility. Our other guess was Ask Jeeves, since we didn't think that Excite had the money for that kind of hardware. But who knows, maybe Exodus floated the bill for that too.
Theory: widespread fast communication inverts perception.

Past: the cops in that town over there are probably good because the cops here are good.

Present: the cops here are probably bad because the cops over there are bad.
I thought the message of Jurassic Park was "Chaos theory is awesome, and capitalists underestimating complexity will watch their innards eaten by their own creations".

If that's part of Luddism – sign me up.
I think we're getting confused on the definition of how the robot accomplishes its task. To clean a toilet like a human would, yeah that's difficult. To clean a toilet like a robot would, it's not. A toilet cleaning robot would have a spinning brush like a drill and would circle the bowl of the toilet a couple of times. Really, really easy thing to do. If a Roomba can clean my entire house, not fall down the stairs, and find its way back to its dock by itself, you can put it on stilts and attach a spinning brush to the bottom and let it find the toilet.

Likewise for a sandwich, if the meat and cheese and bread are all in robot-compatible forms, it's just layering them together. Not much more complicated than a printer that can pull from multiple paper trays. You can even combine the two for maximum efficiency.

What's hard is making a robot behave like a human, because even humans struggle at behaving like a human. IMO there's no purpose to making a robot have the same physical constraints as a human. Our bodies are pretty shitty when you think about it. Robots can be much more elegant.

If you don't think there are sandwich-making robots that actually exist, I'd wonder how you think gas station ham sandwiches are made. Hint: it's a conveyor belt that drops bread, then cheese, then ham, then more bread. That's a robot that makes sandwiches. I'd sell you one for $1m, but you'd probably say "I can make my own for free, thank you!"
I don't know. :/ Are you thinking about a particular niche? For example, I don't remember conversion kits for regular gas automobiles to switch to unleaded. Not exactly the same thing, but perhaps somewhat comparable? And given the state of engine integration in vehicles today, I'm not sure how easy it would be to replace everything that's different between an electric vehicle and an ICE one. For example, batteries versus fuel tank.

Or am I thinking about this wrong?
You mean the IBM that is doing $10m contracts and then paying $30m for screwing these up? http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-25/ibm-to-pay-over-$30m-i...
Name me the important technological innovations in the last 40 years that are not based on (or directly linked to, like shotgun genome sequencing) computation.
No, in the US you'll be required to show a warning to save your ass.
Nothing else would be different.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/donald-trump-fundraise...
I finally paid about 2 years ago when I was using it heavily, however I now mainly use it for quick edits to single files and use other IDEs for project work. It has still easily paid for itself in time saved and general quality of life improvements.
Nobody lives in those 100's years old buildings; those that live in buildings say 200 years old do so at great cost, because they love the history. Functions change, tech changes, living patterns change, and retrofitting is much more expensive than rebuilding after some point. Especially for commercial buildings and downtown areas, it makes little sense to use buildings beyond 100 years, save for some of historical significance.
Certainly. That kind of disproportionate wealth comes via exploitation though, not only hoarding and inheritance.

Is there even enough wealth to go around? If the total wealth is $233 trillion, and there are 7 billion people, each person gets $33286. If we were to just wealth redistribute, does that actually solve the problem under discussion? I don't know whether it does. For a huge amount of earth's population it's the value of more than a lifetime of work.

And could it be true that there's a big fat bubble everywhere else where that same amount of money doesn't even get you by for a year, or in the richest cities in the U.S. not even 6 months? What happens if the veil of ignorance applied to resource allocation were simply reset, globally?

Probably a lot of fraud, exploitation, and murder, to take that share from others to enrich a few. I think we like to pretend we're civilized. The language we use now isn't even describing the problem fairly or accurately.
Yeah, there's something wrong with you. Not trying to be mean, but what you wrote, that's not normal.
Also because they like those areas? Many people dream of moving to New York. And they would dream that with out without the jobs.
The biggest issue, IMO, with a lot of American zoning codes is that they require that retail spaces be specifically zoned to exist at all. This does a lot to prevent the organic growth of small retail spaces that exist in other countries.
From what I've heard, Germany has some very strong privacy laws. It keeps them from being able to use products that many others around the world can use. And I'm not talking about social media- it affects basic things like timekeeping software. And German workers expect that level of privacy; they don't think it's excessive.

While I'm all for privacy, when much of the rest of the world isn't like that, it makes it significantly harder to do business with other countries.

But, I actually think it wouldn't be a terrible thing if strict laws on privacy were enacted worldwide, as long as they had more benefit to people than annoyance and didn't significantly restrict personal freedom. There is too much data right now.

On the other hand, I'm tired of signing HIPAA forms, and the bureaucracy around it. I just wish that the legal system was more common sense. Maybe an amendment to the U.S. Constitution something to the effect of "Information about a citizen shall not be collected and stored against the will of the citizen." Then get rid of HIPAA, etc. and just let the citizen take businesses to court if they find that the business was responsible for out-of-control personal data collection. But, I'm sure there are valid reasons to get specific.
Sentiment analysis is pretty common in most NLP packages. The algorithms are already in place; you're half-way there. :)
"Of course a robot could do those things. Those are very easy things to do. "

Sorry, but no. Very, very hard.

+ Find my fridge
+ Open it
+ Find the meat
+ Find the bread
+ Open the mayo
+ Get a knife
+ Spread it

etc. etc. etc.

Even if you do it 'the machines way' it's extremely difficult.

No way. Not for quite a while.

Much harder than 'driving a car'.

Without proving it directly - let me do it indirectly:

Factories would love to have robots with such intelligence and dexterity. It's definitely worth '10's of thousands of dollars' per machine to do that.

If machines could do that ... even Chinese labourers would be out of a job.

We can barely make robotic arms that 'hold stuff' of any weight reasonably without getting out of balance.

Go ahead and look at industrial grade robot-arms - you'll see these powerful steel machines - max load: 5 lbs (!).

McDonald's would be having robots prep your burgers - even ina a controlled/machine setting - and they don't do it - because it's a ways off.

There are so many issues with that one, it's a long way off.