skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I was trying to teach myself some Rust and found the state of the documentation to be very frustrating. The core language is decently documented with the manual, but the standard library documentation was out of date in many places, most annoyingly in the first few hits on Google.

I found 5 different ways to read a file on Google, and only one of them still worked. Plus I saw the release notes on the newest version that the syntax that worked is now obsolete in favor of a new operator.
Thank you, I've added a le cert for the fqdn and updated the postfix config and a test email went straight to gmail inbox!
Every opinion is the majority opinion of some social circle. That is not the point of the article. The point is that the author has been exposed to both white supremacy and tolerance, is in a position where he can evaluate both of them from an insider's view, and clearly chose tolerance as the morally superior option.
The facial recognition runs only while connected to power.
It's continually frustrating that articles like this don't link to the original research. In the age of Sci-Hub, research is so much more accessible than ever before. More non-academic traffic to publishers' sites might even encourage them to offer sensible legal ways of getting hold of papers too, as JSTOR have.

I couldn't immediately find a DOI for this -- it's possible, of course, that it's unpublished (it sounds like PhD work). That would be useful to know, too, though.
I'm not sure how a photo-print of the manuscript will help cryptographers. Doesn't the digital version available at archive.org provide better opportunities for analysis?

https://archive.org/details/TheVoynichManuscript

For example, a friend of mine is fascinated with the Zodiac Killer's unsolved ciphers, so he put the note into a program, where you can replace the cryptic symbols in the serial killer's note with various letters:

http://www.oranchak.com/zodiac/webtoy/

A printed-book of the Voynich Manuscript--to my mind--actually reduces the ability of cryptographers to decode it (if there's even anything there to actually decode[1]). I would love to see the symbols in this book broken out into a font where we can run statistics on them, replace them with various letters from different alphabets, and seek patterns in their occurrence.

[1] An analysis of the manuscript found the distribution of words " is not compatible with natural languages": https://arxiv.org/abs/1601.07435
Ask HN: Who are the best dedicated server providers right now?
I'm looking to upgrade our dedicated server infrastructure and I'm trying to shop around for some good deals. I'm running into a lot of providers that are either single-homed, have fairly crazy bandwidth prices, offer very old hardware or use consumer grade parts like SSDs.

My requirements are eight 3+ GHz CPU cores (Haswell or newer), 64+ GB RAM, 10+ TB outbound bandwidth and a mix of HDD / SSD storage (using enterprise-class drives!). Network should have a good mix of peering and not rely on a single carrier such as Telia / NTT as many seem to. Budget is < $1k/month.

Right now OVH is looking like my best option as they seem to be the only provider offering 4th / 5th gen Intel CPUs with Intel SSDs at a reasonable price, and their own network with peering at lots of major IXes.

Anyone have any other good recommendations?
What is it specifically that you believe, and why do you believe it?
I personally prefer Prehistoric C, which only has the two language keywords "ugh" and "grunt". Modern C has too many keywords for my taste.
I find that people who have racist beliefs often see differing viewpoints as the enemy - the first breach being simple consideration of a new perspective.

True, but the problem is not limited to racists. I'm in the "moderate" part of the political spectrum, and I find that far too many people on both the left and right have the same behaviors.

I suggest to my left-leaning friends that government should be a "last resort" solution at best, and is frequently actually the problem; to my right-leaning friends I explain the crucial importance of privacy, civil liberties, and equal justice; and in either case the response is frequently incredulous disbelief and contempt for my naivete and/or obvious privilege yada yada yada.

The echo chambers are real, and they are a threat to our civil society.
>The Tesla is a good example of this

A car without LIDAR, only relying on camera.

>A human, on the other hand, notices

The camera didn't even doubt that there wasn't an obstacle in its path due to how it camouflaged against the background. I doubt the human would've seen it.

And you're speaking of a prototype hacked on a car barely prepared for self-driving situations (again, no LIDAR and early iteration) and being used improperly.

You're not making a good argument here.
Rather, it was the exposure to individuals who were being hurt by the politics he favored.

And whites, especially male and/or heterosexuals, aren't "being hurt" by the Left's campaign against them, that says we're uniquely guilty, uniquely unable to absolve ourselves of this guilt, or as Hillary put it, "irredeemable"?

Just what is the Left's end game for us? Should we take a clue from its crowing about how soon we'll be a minority in the US?

Any particular reason we shouldn't join the game of identity politics that every other group is playing? Any particular reason we must commit suicide (which is by no means an entirely figurative thing in the US)?
> I should probably count up x86 against ARM

It is not easy to tell how many instruction there actually are on x86:

> https://fgiesen.wordpress.com/2016/08/25/how-many-x86-instru...
Nope: "For both iOS and macOS, the new Photos scans quietly for objects and scenes, but because facial recognition is more computationally (and thus battery) intensive, both OSes let you know that face-interpretation only occurs when iOS devices and Mac laptops are plugged in and have sufficient charge. In iOS, it can happen in the background while the device is plugged in."

http://www.macworld.com/article/3092715/photography/hands-on...
Official Brussels' statement: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_STATEMENT-16-4042_en.ht...
No, it's a real problem, examples of the lefts "special brand of science denialism":

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/687863?jour...

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/should-rese...
I love these posts for several reasons.

1. People think of companies like Uber primarily as providers of a regular service to customers (similarly to how Airbnb or Netflix is perceived), but it's interesting to see the engineering chops needed to maintain this operation.
2. Given the relative youth of the company, the stack employed is quite modern and often uses cutting edge technologies in production and with real impact on custormers. Everyday users of these technologies usually only get 'textbook' explanations, but blog posts like these allow them to actually find out how these can be used in production, what the caveats are, how they interplay with other parts of the stack etc.
3. Some people complain that when a startup gets bought or implodes, their technology virtually disappears instead of benefitting the wider developer community for learning purposes (I'm not here to argue what the best practice should be, just stating an observation of a common complaint). By continually describing their engineering practices (similarly to Airbnb in their engineering blog) and open sourcing their non-business technology (e.g. go-torch), their experience lives on beyond the life of the company.

Last but not least, it build a positive ethos about this company in the developer community.
I tried that while researching the article, but found the call to "puts" doesn't link without the standard library code. And without a "puts" or similar call to produce output LLVM optimized the entire program away :)

I suppose this could work if, as you suggest, I manually called out to a lib_c function like printf instead.
Why I'm Deleting My Reddit Account If Huffman Stays
Email notification dashboard, I didn't know I needed something like this
Hydrocarbons are useless without an oxydant.
TL;DR If Jeff Bezos (or any Amazon employee) edited Amazon reviews, I'd be outta there too.
Account Based Marketing, When Sales and Marketing Meet – Code95
Another day for the HN crowd to express their distaste for C :)
Given that we've seen exactly how little information Signal maintains about its users [0], this seems to me to be alarmist spreading of FUD, potentially to advance the author's agenda of dfederation in Signal, which the developers have already addressed at length already [1].

For example, their assertion that "... metadata is abundantly available here" appears to be patently false, given [0].

0: https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-future/new-documents-reveal-g...

1: https://whispersystems.org/blog/the-ecosystem-is-moving/
> Every opinion is the majority opinion of some social circle.

But not every opinion is the majority opinion of the social circle that the person is immersed in right now.

> clearly chose tolerance as the morally superior option

Possibly. But also it's possible that the fact that this was a much more socially acceptable opinion played a significant role.
> "Open source advocates must defend their thesis that freely developed software should, or will with time, be better than proprietary software."

IMO open source advocates should stop defending and start making better free software. (most) People use what's good not what's ideologically pure.
Example : you don't have to defend Linux as a server OS because it's an excellent OS for servers. Now if we're talking as a desktop OS ...
ESEA (a counter-strike matchmaking service) tried this. It didn't go well.

https://www.google.nl/search?q=esea+bitcoin+scandal
If you move this into the language itself, the language will grow. It is better to define the language as having the simplest possible API which will still work. Then build something like supervisors on top of that fabric.

Supervisors use the concept of a 'linked process' internally, which is the language-level construct which allows you to build supervisors in the first place. Another construct, the 'monitor' is also worth mentioning. It came later, and supercedes the link in some way.
It's Germany, believe me, my friend. Customer service in Berlin, especially. People working here in customer service seem to not have basic CS training and they are simply not polite. The most important thing to them seems to be to ensure that it's not their fault that you have a problem and that your problem is yours. I call it "don't give a st mentality". Really sad. It's one of the things which makes me want to leave this country.
Be careful doing this - this may well be against the ToS of your VPS service.
Here's the doco, showing the creation of systemd service units.

* http://uwsgi-docs.readthedocs.io/en/latest/Systemd.html
(I'll try to use groups and traits at random to protect myself from cherry-picked quotes).

Suppose we discovered that gay people have a tendency to be better at sport, and black people a tendency to be smarter. That white people have better reflexes, and asians can remember things really well. All the "discoveries" about physical attributes have a pretty good chance of being tolerated by society, all the ones about mental attributes are likely to cause a massive public outcry.

For the scientific/analytical thinkers, this taboo of researching certain things is a bit weird. There is essentially the potential for knowledge that we're not allowed to discover. The steps to gaining that knowledge can be perfectly ethical, but the knowledge itself is toxic.

This generally troubles me. This idea that I can't talk about certain things, even if it's just to try to get people to point out the flaws in my reasoning... It's like a kind of self-imposed censorship.
A printed-book of the Voynich Manuscript--to my mind--actually reduces the ability of cryptographers to decode it

Only if you assume that choice of layout, spacing, character size, colors, relative positioning of text and illustrations etc. etc. aren't an integral part of the whole message.
I've read that many people consider the "both sides have few nukes" dangerous. One side may think they can strike first, either conventionally or with some of their own nukes and disable their opponent's ability to retaliate. With thousands of warheads that isn't possible.
Star Wars to launch obnoxiously branded smartphones in Japan
Based on the context, I expected your list to remind me of how corporations have been treating users lately (I thought this was the point you're making) - but out of these 7 rules only #7 seems to apply? What I mean is that #1, 2, 3,4, 5, and 6 literally don't seem to be happening? (At least, they don't remind me of anything?)
And using "flat earth beliefs" as a comparison is telling, seeing as how that conceit is a 19th Century propaganda campaign (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth#Myth_of_the_flat_Ea... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth), conjuring up a belief that hadn't been widely held since the High and Late Middle Ages (see the first link).
From what I can see, the whole

> For open source, poor-quality software is a problem to be explained away or a reason to eschew the software altogether. For free software, it is a problem to be worked through.

is a big unexplained pile of garbage, and without that the whole thing falls.
NYTimes talk about White nationalism and Trump mixed nicely in same article. Dear NYTimes why don't you cover real news subjects like Pizzagate example ?
Are we denial about that subject and it's long spaghetti where it could lead ? Lol.
- Fakenews NYTimes,
No thanks
Thinking of corporations in terms of its employees means said employees have to take responsibility for their products. I'm all for it.

The same can be applied to governments (though I believe it's less of a problem than with corporations): it's not "the government" that's fucking things up, it's the people in it.
I think it is accurate to talk about corporations like separate entities - alien entities, in the same way we sometimes talk about "market" as an entity, or about "$country" when we mean its government's decisions. In a complex organization composed of many individuals pursuing somewhat aligned, but ever so slightly different agendas, there may not be any single person to blame for the aggregate behaviour.

I see your suggestion of overcoming "diffusion of responsibility" as a way to kill the alien being corporation is. When you force things to be set up in such a way a single individual (or a small group) is ultimately responsible for some area of corporate behaviour, you reduce the chance of corporation displaying some emergent behaviour that no human can prevent or vouch for. Seems like an interesting and maybe even good idea to me.
Well goodbye.
It's not unstable, it's metastable. Metastability being dependent on any party only being able to start if by consensus of many people, and most people deeply understand it that whatever certainty level you have, the rational choice is still to not launch the nukes, as you have never anything to gain by that.

The huge problem with the Dr. Strangelove situation is that it broke that first condition there.
But at least they shouldn't use phrases like `persistent sets` in the documentation. I confused that with the datatype on my first reading. Technical details are necessary but that is just creating unnecessary confusion. Compare that to the haskell documentation:

A map from hashable keys to values. A map cannot contain duplicate keys; each key can map to at most one value. A HashMap makes no guarantees as to the order of its elements.

The implementation is based on hash array mapped tries. A HashMap is often faster than other tree-based set types, especially when key comparison is expensive, as in the case of strings.

Many operations have a average-case complexity of O(log n). The implementation uses a large base (i.e. 16) so in practice these operations are constant time.
Double dip tasting is my "favourite" to see on TV
I read an interesting book a while ago by Thomas Schelling [1] that said in nuclear launch systems, being unreliable is a feature not a bug.

Let's say you want to threaten your enemy with nuclear war so they'll do what you want. Maybe you want them to withdraw their missiles from Cuba. The threat you make actually has two components - the claim you'll launch, and the credibility of that claim. The enemy is only scared of the /product/ of threat and credibility, so if either is zero your enemy has nothing to fear.

If you say "we'll certainly launch" you have no credibility (you'd have launched already, and everyone can see you haven't) and if you say "we certainly won't launch" you have no threat.

In fact, Schelling points out, the only credible threats are /randomized/ threats, that fall somewhere between 100% and 0% chance of launching. You threaten your enemy by showing him you have a system that has a 0.1% chance of launching per day, and you'll roll the dice every day until they withdraw their missiles from cuba (or whatever you want them to do).

Except rather than rolling dice, the random threat is from systems failures and mad generals.

This is what the DEFCON level is really about - increasing the 'readiness level' amounts to reducing the controls that prevent accidental launches, increasing the threat of a random launch.

'Doomsday machines' can be explained by a similar calculation: Nobody will believe you if you claim you'll trigger nuclear war if a single soldier took a single step over a border. So why would you for two soldiers or two steps - or indeed the capture of some trifling town near one of your allies' borders? It's not like mutually assured destruction will become a more palatable concept when the enemy tanks are ten miles over the border instead of one.

However, if you build a doomsday machine with tank detectors ten miles past the border, then you give enemy diplomats and spies a tour and show them that it works, the claim that you'll launch has credibility /despite/ the fact the ten mile line is arbitrary. The invader's calculation is no longer "If our conventional forces do X, will /they/ trigger a launch?" but instead "Do /we/ want to trigger a launch?" and the answer to that is always 'no'.

So Dr Strangelove is actually a pretty well informed film :)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Schelling#The_Strategy_...
For the record, I want a self-driving car and 9 out of 10 captchas confirm I am a human.
In a PDF no less. I for one do not miss C (or Objective-C for a long time) at all. I built my first commercial app in C starting in the mid 1985 (Mac). That's how much of an antique this language is.
I don't know, but open up emacs, type M-x term, then emacs -nw, then type M-x term, then repeat.

It's very silly.
It strikes me as odd you'd even go to the lengths of producing such a book. If you really wanted to protect people from the worst vagaries C the book should simply say "don't".
Any idea if it will be available as a physical book?
You "just" need (yeah, easier said than done) to ensure that any intervention from an admin is publicly logged. If admin "foo" removes some content from user "bar", it should just be made visible, something like "user foo removed offensive content from user bar" or "that comment was edited by user foo". The problem here with reddit was not the fact that content was edited, it was that content was edited without anyone knowing it.
Yeah, again and again. it's like blaming a hammer for the potential of breaking your finger when you use it, and proposing the use of a spoon, instead.
Foundation – No Man's Sky
> there are condition flag implications of using XOR and sometimes MOV will be preferable

If the condition flags have to be preserved, you are right. But otherwise, read the linked article (https://randomascii.wordpress.com/2012/12/29/the-surprising-...):

"On Sandybridge this gets even better. The register renamer detects certain instructions (xor reg, reg and sub reg, reg and various others) that always zero a register. In addition to realizing that these instructions do not really have data dependencies, the register renamer also knows how to execute these instructions – it can zero the registers itself. It doesn’t even bother sending the instructions to the execution engine, meaning that these instructions use zero execution resources, and have zero latency! See section 2.1.3.1 of Intel’s optimization manual where it talks about dependency breaking idioms. It turns out that the only thing faster than executing an instruction is not executing it."
The Game Boy doesn't quite use a Z80 --- like the Z80 it's based on the 8080, but in a different way. So you don't get things like the IX and IY or the alternate register banks, but you do get things like (a very crude set of) stack-relative addressing modes, which makes it a better fit for modern programming languages than the Z80.

http://gbdev.gg8.se/wiki/articles/CPU_Comparision_with_Z80

As an aside: most of the old, classic 8-bit micros are complete pains to write modern code for, because modern programming languages all assume fast stacks. The Z80 has no stack-relative addressing, which means you need to reserve a precious index register as a frame pointer at the top of every function, and then indirect off that --- but the Z80 designers didn't realise that people would want to do it so often and as a result it's verbose, deal slow, and doesn't handle 16-bit values. So you need to do:

ld h, [iy+8]
ld l, [iy+9]

...for a total of 8 bytes of code and lots of cycles.

The Game Boy processor (which doesn't have a snappy name) allows this:

ld hl, sp+8
ldi a, [hl] // load and increment
ld l, [hl]
mov a, h

...which is (IIRC) five bytes. Still not great, but shorter, and also loads faster.

If you look at the instruction encodings, the Z80's actually a pile of nasty hacks. The original 8080 is way more elegant; and there's lots of software and tooling for it, too. (But it still can't run C efficiently.)
Strong opinions and weak arguments.
> Yes, US should just mind its own business.

Now please convince the Latvians of that, say. Seriously, the case that the second half of the 20th century would have turned out better with an isolationist US is a hard case to make.

> Just because other governments do it doesn't make it right.

I'm not entirely convinced. The problem is that alliances are not permanent...

> And I spelled hypocrisy wrong.

Then as I said, I don't understand the rest of your paragraph.

> My understanding is the world would be a better place if everyone works together and live peacefully.

Sure. We'd need no police, no armies, etc. It would be pretty nice.

The question is how we get there.
Are you not concerned about a CEO's abuse of users? What would it take to cross the line, in your mind, johncoltrane?

For example, suppose this happened on Hacker News. Would you leave if PG edited your comments? Other user's comments if you were sympathetic to them? Other user's comments that you disagreed with? Or do you lack any principle in this area?
Do people really have to tell the whole world when they decide to stop using a service ?
If the handle of the hammer you're holding was a chainsaw that randomly turns on and off. And also sometimes explodes killing your entire family and pet dog. Don't blame the explodey-chainsaw-hammer, it's just a tool. Okay an idiotically dangerous too that nobody in their right mind should use, but still just a tool.