skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> If you are hired as a programmer, then yes, just do whatever we ask of you. But if you are hired as an engineer, everything the business asks of you comes with an implicit: "and make sure it's done in a proper way that won't break anything, or slow us down, or cost us too much, or limit our ability to gain a competitive edge."

This is a distinction that is a very thin line and most people with "engineer" in their title would not sign up for.
Maybe hiding our messages from Google is worthwhile even if we can't hide them from the NSA.
Implies you're a soldier.
Most people don't realize earthquakes themselves are not very likely to kill you, it's the gas leaks and fires that usually follow that cause the most loss of life and property damage.

In 1906 nearly 80% of San Francisco burned down after the quake. Most of the rubble was then pushed into the bay to create the very landfill that a lot of buildings are built on top of now.
> A methodology that doesn't scale well across boxes, so only buys you so much. Demo code might benefit from this approach, but production code will do something totally different to give an API or server actual durability and uptime.

Yes, you would have a load balancer in front of several instances running on several machines. Same as Haskell.

> Nodejs's scheduler and execution model fundamentally make it worse at compute-heavy workloads. THIS IS AN ACCEPTABLE TRADEOFF. But denying it exists only misleads engineers and leads you to bad decisions.

I agree, in principle. But one, its not nearly as bad as this article makes it. And additionally, the given example is not convincing or very representative.
It didn't have to run any real software except a browser and maybe a PDF reader. Also, yeah it was a remote grad program, so it was a bit of an experiment with how you do testing remotely at scale. I think they were trying to reach a fair compromise that didn't involve rewriting course content to include more open exams.
Seems like names on the "App Store" [are going to be regulated by Google][1] to prevent that:

> There will be app store-like policies in place to prevent things like keyword camping — one developer using another company’s name for their action or another developer trying to jump on owning important keywords like “shopping.” Douglas says that “this is a large reason for there being a review process. Much of the policy compliance is this process of name selection. “

[1]: http://www.theverge.com/2016/12/8/13878444/google-home-devel...
Once again the Supreme Court has stepped in to curb the Federal Circuit Court and bring a level-headed interpretation to the relevant statute defining how damages are computed for infringing patent rights to a component that is part of a larger article of sale.

The precise legal issue involved here is primarily of interest to the immediate parties to the dispute (and, of course, similarly situated parties dealing with like claims). It is not a legal issue that stirs much public debate.

Yet the reining in of the Federal Circuit has major public consequences. The Federal Circuit basically has been on on a bender for the past 20+ years in interpreting the patent laws such that basically everything under the sun became patentable with the enforcement rights of patent holders utterly maximized. This led to the plethora of software and other process patents that has caused so many to throw up their hands in despair and to conclude that all patents are evil and should be abolished. Whether they should or not is a policy question for which there are decent arguments on both sides, in my view. But, assuming one agrees that patent protection can be useful for the right cases, the law is now coming around much more to the point where far more defensible patents are being granted, upheld and enforced and where such enforcement is more reasonably tailored to the purposes of patent law as envisioned in the U.S. Constitution. And that is a very good thing.

Apple is and has for years been very aggressive in attacking competitors with patent claims. In this case, their patent was upheld and the question remained as to how much they had been injured. With this decision, the U.S. Supreme Court helps ensure that Apple will get compensation but not a windfall for the wrong done to it.

Patent law may be right or it may be wrong in a social-justice sense but, as far as the U.S. law is concerned, if it is to be upheld and enforced at all, it should be done in a way that actually furthers its proper purposes and not in a way that promotes shakedown suits and opportunistic legal claims. So kudos to the Supreme Court for getting it right and for putting proper bounds on patent laws in general in a way that helps bring sanity to the field.
I get paid for code that works, not for tests, so my philosophy is to test as little as possible to reach a given level of confidence (I suspect this level of confidence is high compared to industry standards, but that could just be hubris). If I don’t typically make a kind of mistake (like setting the wrong variables in a constructor), I don’t test for it.

Which is unfortunately complete opposite of how TDD was interpreted, especially in its glory days (and in some corners, up until the present day).
If it involves clients, then you need the paperwork and may save on part of the VAT + part of the money could be considered expense.
Usually it can be quite complex and it's not harmonized in the EU.
If everyone "working hard enough to keep their jobs" isn't sufficient to enable the company to succeed then there's something wrong with the company.
I suspect this kind of thing is common in "in-house" applications where the assumption is that the app will never be exposed to the open internet.
This boilerplate project uses react-native and react-native-web to achieve cross-platform design.
It can run on Android, iOS, Web (can also run as a Windows/MacOS/Linux desktop app using Electron)
I cannot disagree more. If you are bothering to write a test in the first place, do it right. There is nothing worse as a developer than receiving a ticket or a user report saying "It broke; fix it" with no other information.

Not to mention it will literally take you 2 minutes to add the better reporting.
Ask HN: What do you use to clean up data?
I use iPython/Jupyter notebooks and mostly pandas to clean up data by hand. But I was wondering if there was a better way that other people use to clean up their data.
Is there evidence that our culture is becoming less healthy?

A trip to any U. S. major theme park ought to do the trick, preferably one of the ones around Orlando.

It seemed to me that we, meaning the US as a whole, have been building better habits.

I hesitate to pull the "you live in a bubble" card, but I think it applies here. If I looked around me here in Seattle, I might agree with you. Buncha fit hiker/snowboarder types driving Subarus on their way to the xTREME Mudfest This Is Sparta Run Sponsored by Rockstar Energy Drink. You have nothing in your profile for me to go on, so I'll go with assuming you're a 20/30-something bro living around SV who's into running/biking/whatever like all of your friends. You look around and go, "obesity problem? What obesity problem?"

Then I hop on a plane to visit my parents in Florida, and the bubble pops. O...M...G, when did children turn into such butterballs? Oh, that explains it: look at their parents. Pictures of friends in the Midwest? Same thing: when did my classmates get so fat? Again, I don't know your background, but if you're basing your opinion on what you've seen on the west coast, you're doing it wrong.
> Maybe Haskell does some sort of automatic multi-threading behind the scenes - If so, I'm not sure that's a good thing

GHC (the leading Haskell compiler) provides an extremely advanced green threading system with the runtime. http://haskell.cs.yale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/hask03...

> I like the way it's done in Node.js - Explicitly.

If you wanted to do it this way in Haskell, there are a number of monads that make it way more convenient than doing it in Node. Cont in particular can be used for cooperative concurrency. No one really uses these outside of niche cases, however, because threads are almost always a better abstraction.
>"Maybe if you give them too much information, they won't want to come in."

Perceptive, since that's exactly the reason I ask so many questions before I physically drive out to meet someone. On the other hand, refusing to answer questions is pretty much guaranteed to put my guard up, too, which is contrary to their goals.

I'm an ITT graduate. I experienced none of what was in the article. That may have been their tactics at some point, but it wasn't used on me in the early 00's. Perhaps the person who was talking to me knew their job really well and knew it wasn't a good idea.

In the end, I learned nearly nothing (I was self-taught already and mostly wanted the paperwork) and got a 4.0 GPA. I watched others around me struggle with basic programming. Most of them quit, and I graduated with about 4 others in that program.

They claimed that a high percentage of their graduates had jobs when they graduated, but what they didn't make clear was that those jobs weren't necessarily in their field. I didn't have a job at all, most others didn't have a job in IT, and the 1 who did got it on their own at their current employer, Disney. Despite them providing no leads, they blamed my lack of job on me and how I approached it. No attempt was made beyond basic resume and interview coaching. That guy ended up getting fired after my father made a huge stink about it repeatedly. (He wasn't the only one, I gathered.)

When I did get hired, it was by a company that cared more about my skill than anything, and I actually looked worse on paper than the other main candidate. The company paid for BrainBench exams and I blew the other guy away, which got me hired. The paperwork I cared so much about has never been useful. The original estimate was $30k. I paid $23k because I transferred in some credits and tested out of others.
Can a book (print or electronic) not be published anonymously or under a pseudonym?
"All of their products are still based on their end-user being the product since everything is free"
Counterexamples:
GSuite (fka Google Apps)
Google Pixel
Google Home
Google Wifi
Google Cloud Platform
I think it is important to note that Tox is still considered alpha. From their own wiki's FAQ:

"Tox is by no means complete. You may encounter bugs ranging from simple visual defects to segfaults on file shares. We cannot guarantee what works today will work tomorrow; Tox is an alpha program and code changes daily. Certain commits may break existing APIs, and we strive to give proper advanced warning to all client developers, etc. when such changes will be made. Additionally, Tox has not yet received a full security audit. While we believe Tox is secure against attackers who want to decrypt your messages, you may wish to use a more established solution if you are in a life-or-death situation."

If you're in a life-or-death situation, I think you really ought to be doing some intensive research into secure communications to find the solution that will work best for you.
Don't you think, just maybe, there's a strong inherent bias in your statement?

I'm going to be blunt but when was the last time a16z had a hit on their hands?

Help me understand the branding value of a16z because I didn't get any of that vibe from the article. Also most founders aren't multi-billionaires to boot, so I don't see the connect.
Hey ! It's already posted <3

https://github.com/Microsoft/AzureNotebooks/issues/4
“Ticket Bot” Act Passed by Congress; Heads to President
Reading the examples in the man page brings me back to a different era of modems and BBSs:

"The name 'Expect' comes from the idea of send/expect sequences popularized by uucp, kermit and other modem control programs."

"Cause your computer to dial you back, so that you can login without paying for the call."

"Start a game (e.g., rogue) and if the optimal configuration doesn't appear, restart it (again and again) until it does, then hand over control to you."

"Connect to another network or BBS (e.g., MCI Mail, CompuServe) and automatically retrieve your mail so that it appears as if it was originally sent to your local system."

"Carry environment variables, current directory, or any kind of information across rlogin, telnet, tip, su, chgrp, etc."
The best machine learning idea you never heard of
Both collaborative assignments and assessments of those assignments are often poorly conceptualized in school.

Why, for example, do curriculum developers create (or choose to adopt from textbook publishers) scenarios where if one person fails, everybody in the group suffers? That's not why we collaborate. In fact, that's the opposite of why we collaborate. We don't do it to create multiple points of failure.

It's also a problem with the way we assess and the fact that we almost exclusively conduct summative assessments on these types of projects with high-stakes consequences rather than formative assessments that allow the experience to be used to foster understanding.

I'm a parent (and an education journalist). I see a lot of this. My daughter has had to do the entire work for several "collaborative" projects to maintain her GPA just because the other students wouldn't do the work or wouldn't do it well. That's a common complaint.

Two ideas for getting around that:

1. For the types of assignments where a small group produces a single outcome and shares responsibility for it, assess formatively. If the group does poorly, the teacher sits down with them and gives them supplemental instruction. And, in talking to the students, that teacher can also discover where the weaker students are and focus on them. That way you get assessment with zero high-stakes consequences, and you help advance learning rather than ending it with a letter grade.

2. Assign projects where each student has a job and is evaluated singularly for that job but is allowed to work collaboratively with other students (and the teacher) to complete it. There are all kinds of ways to encourage collaboration in those cases without resorting to punishing others for one person's failure in the end product of a collaborative assignment.

As others have said, there's also the question of assessment itself. Why assess for a grade or points or what have you? There's a movement to do away with grades and test scores. It's working fairly well, but it requires serious dedication from the teacher to ensure that students are learning. Large-scale, that's difficult. We don't have 4 million+ teachers who would be willing to do that extra work.
That could help. And maybe adjusting the threshold for flamewar detection - with the "hide subthread" functionality the cost of a flamewar might be somewhat lower.

Thanks again for sharing your learnings. Unsurprisingly I have some thoughts of my own, but first I'm curious about what others have learned ...

https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=13132782
Contributing to the Go project
Of course, beacons do not keep the persistent connection since that would drain too much battery. But they are not synchronized, so you can pass data to one edge of the mesh and it will be passed with some latency to another edge - like on the tree video.
If you watch carefully the tree video it's like a chain reaction since more nodes are influencing other nodes in the range.
It always amazed me how little Star Trek used robots, even just remote arms, to do things. (Yeah, it's a side-effect of it being made for TV)
Ahh, ok, so that means the prices likely do reflect the probability accurately...
You have to really watch those interview red flags. They're super important.

I had one right out of college where the office (on energy efficient lightning) looked like some cubicle version of hell. A person in the elevator on the way to the interview mouthed "run away" to me, and really creeped me out.

I got the job, but literally couldn't even handle a full day in that cave-like godawful place.
It's spelled 'aoeui' but it's pronounced 'Throat-Warbler Mangrove'.
Just some x y work but i think some here might enjoy the nostalgia

400k+ 2x2 Lego bricks pixel wall
http://imgur.com/a/X5fHS
And the people who ended up with Chrome installed and set as their default browser because they installed some other application (like Flash) were using Chrome willingly, right?

Yes, Google was doing that sort of thing for Chrome distribution for a while. They've stopped since, which is better than nothing, I guess. [Edit: apparently they haven't stopped, according to ocdtrekkie's comment! Or maybe they have started again.]

Point is, a lot of people are NOT using Google's products willingly. They may be using them because someone else set them up with the product and they don't know how to change, they may be using it because they're required to for work (Google docs, e.g.).
It’s not the price they don’t like, but what they understand they are (or are not) getting for that price.

Chris Hopf
PricingWire
Just think of the security nightmare of plugging your computer into hardware on a data bus like USB. And that is not even taking into consideration that using a publicly available screen and keyboard which on their own can easily be used for logging screen and key data.
I'm a little surprised there isnt some kind of standardized Dvorak compatibility layer by now
But those are different classes of bets, no? I mean, Tesla makes cars, and a self-driving car is still a car. Google's primary business has nothing to do with cars. Their "X" bets are in completely orthogonal fields from their primary business. They are (in theory, anyway) hedges against a complete collapse of that primary business, while Tesla's is more evolving their primary business to position it for the future.

Which is not to say that Tesla is Doing It Wrong -- I personally am a much bigger fan of focused, iterative improvement than of wasteful throw-spaghetti-at-the-wall "moon shots." It just feels unfair to compare the two.
Thank you!

tl;dr: You can fork the Signal code if you want, but if you do, Moxie Marlinspike asks you to change the app name and run your own servers. The server source code appears to be available at https://github.com/WhisperSystems/Signal-Server, but I've heard it doesn't include the voice component.

So, for example, if you think that Signal ought to support a feature like iMessage's "Invisible Ink" (https://mic.com/articles/146347/i-os-10-s-invisible-ink-feat...), which Moxie has specifically refused to support (https://github.com/WhisperSystems/Signal-Android/issues/5103), then you can't just fork the client, implement it yourself, and use the new client normally, because you'd no longer be able to talk to regular Signal client if I understand correctly. I mean, even if you figured out a way for two clients to tell each other whether or not the feature was available.

So Signal is open source, but not in a way that's useful if you want to change something.

I don't want to discourage people from using Signal. It's a great app. But I thought this was worth pointing out, assuming the LibreSignal is representative of what will happen if people want to make changes to their client.
> What that means is that they, for example, can't all make a system call at the same time.

Yes, they can. The Haskell IO manager knows how to handle this. http://haskell.cs.yale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/hask03...
... im probably on an island alone here with my opinion but...

I'm glad this is being brought to light... and that investors are angry. This sort of action I think should be wildly illegal.

It's removing a great deal of value from one's share. That value is being able to vote. I'm not a FB shareholder but if they had removed my voting power (or rather made it a 1/3 of what it was) I'd want compensation and then I'd sell my shares.

This sort of crap is propagating a big issue: the separation of management and control from ownership of companies. It invites irresponsibility and selfishness because the cost of such to management is continuously decreasing. While the owners (shareholders) are the ones to pay the real price for their actions.

This is how we have problems like CEOs losing money quarter after quarter but still getting bonuses and ever larger golden parachutes...

It's easy to say he's a "visionary" now but the markets facebook has ridden its growth on were not a result of it being amazing. It was a combination of the right time, luck, and a bit of vision (he does deserve some credit). Now that markets are saturated we'll see how truly visionary he is... acquiring for growth targets doesn't make him visionary it just makes him a good business person. If he can't grow it or his vision is off-- it won't matter, if he missteps and costs his shareholders. He and his cronies will still be rich as hell and his shareholders will pay the price.
That's Apple's argument for trade dress damages, which are set in an equitable process in accord with damages suffered by Apple. And those damages will now probably be set in a retrial and Samsung will still have to pay them—as a minimum.

This appeal was about design patents. The old interpretation of the design patent law required the entire profits earned by the infringer be automatically turned over to the patentee, no matter how small the patented design was in relation to the product. Entire profits is a lot more than anyone gets from trade dress copying damages.

The trial judge had not separated different damages calculations before because total profits encompassed all the other damages Samsung owed and was easiest to judge.
Which is a risk with every service we use...
good luck! do you have a progress blog or something?
The connection I saw, was FP has a steeper learning curve and favours higher math concepts that manye autodidacts are lacking, so they would naturally go into learning OOP.
one interesting note is that life expectancy at 65 years of age did not change, Indicating that the diseases behind the lower life expectancy occur in middle age or younger.
The reasons behind the decrease. [deaths per 100K population]
The heart disease went up from 167 to 168.5
Also'Unintentional Injuries' went up from 40.5 to 43.2.

On the positive side, the contribution of cancer has come down.
You can request a review from someone, but I can't find any way to list pull requests that are awaiting a review from you.

They don't even show up with an involves: filter
Success is a very cruel mistress.

Without some sort of feed back cycle - usually given by the market, things grow in strange and perverse ways fast.

The trick is to develop a feedback cycle that isn't as harsh as the open market (manage by quarters!) without giving absolute free hand.
"no code changes" implies you could potentially be creating
something that doesn't run where you want it to.

Eh... I don't see how those arguments are possibly serious? Is this forced hand-holding of adult people truly your attitude? I deliberately select a non-default option. You (not directly you probably, but you chose to represent that POV) don't know anything about me or my situation. But immediately you start worrying about stuff you don't know anything about, that I might not know what I'm doing, might... could... possibly... hypothetically... Sorry, but this reply, or the attitude you presented which I know may not be your own, really pisses me off, to say it quite frankly. Don't even try to defend the forced(!) nanny attitude, even if you just tried to present what you think is other people's argument.
exactly, with out those hobbies users like myself would be less "trapped" in the Google ecosystem.
That's why you put Win7 in a VM (e.g. VirtualBox) and let them figure out the rest.