skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
In my experience, there are a few things at work. This is just my $0.02, other people's experience may be entirely different.

One, do it gradually -- if you're feeling sick, maybe you should be ramping up more slowly. While muscle can grow quickly, tendons and ligaments take much longer to handle the new workload.

Two, form makes all the difference -- running can either feel heavy and difficult, or lightweight and joyous. But unfortunately, it can take a lot of learning and effort to get to the latter -- good relaxed form is not easy to learn, landing the right way on your foot is incredibly important, for some people things like Vibram shoes help, you might have severe muscle tension preventing good form (see a massage therapist, get a Theracane and use it religiously, etc.), you might have horribly tight hamstrings and need specific stretches for those, the list goes on and on. Me personally, I also had to lose a bunch of weight (getting down to my ideal BMI) for running to feel light and easy rather than painful and pounding.

And third, being in the right mood for enjoying running makes a huge difference too. When I'm not in the mood for it, but I run anyways (because I'm feeling guilty about not running, etc.), I generally stay miserable. But sometimes I really am in the mood for it -- I got enough sleep the night before, I ate a couple hours ago so I have energy, but not so long ago I'm hungry, it's not too early in the day (I'm not a morning person), but not too late either that I'm tired -- finding the right time is huge, and makes all the difference.

Honestly, I love running, but it took a lot of time and effort to figure out everything above that made it work for me -- in my case, years. (And pretty much everything about the programmer lifestyle works against you.) But when you manage to make everything align, it feels great, like you're tapping some kind of primal happiness where you're back on the African savannah tracking down antelope... I'm not even joking.
Every pro gambler and every syndicate I know is trading based on a model, so I'm not sure Kelly's quite as rare in gambling as you think. I do think it's interesting to think about the work required when adding expert judgements on top of model outputs, though.
Go and Julia are already reaping the benefits.

I see no future for Python be that 2 or 3. It's not great at anything, but projects a veneer of friendliness (that one should quickly outgrow) on top of a pile of bad implementation decisions and terrible design.

Its popularity is based on superficial attributes rather
than solid foundations. Eventually, the entire ecosystem will collapse and the masses will flood to the next attractor.
I sell advertising on my site without any automated ad network and it is fantastic.

Automating the process might be easier in some respects but I am very protective of of my readers and only want ads which are both high quality and relevant. Having to talk to me is a good filter to ensure that happens.
I'd guess something more like (ignoring IVs for now):

aes_key = keygen_aes()
crypted_aes_key = rsa_encrypt(MALWARE_PUB_KEY, aes_key)
for file in files:
content = read(file)
encrypted = aes_encrypt(content, aes_key)
write(file, encrypted)
wipe(aes_key)
display(RANSOM_NOTE, crypted_aes_key)

I'd assume all the details needed to decrypt the files EXCEPT for a small key would be stored in the encrypted file headers. The AES key could be encrypted to a given public key and then directly displayed to the victim. This means that the software doesn't really need to know how to send infoto the ransomware writers. Instead the victim would be responsible for contacting them.
I have had mostly positive support experiences for Google Cloud. Granted, my employer is a big customer so Google is making a lot of money out of the relationship, and gcloud is a new and growing platform that you can tell Google is actively investing in (unlike say, Gmail).

High-priority support tickets typically get a very fast response, although it may take several days to debug the issue and fully resolve it. The technical support people are very open about infrastructure issues on their side (although sometimes they don't publicly announce them as early as I'd like). They sometimes even help debug issues in our code when we determine that the problem isn't on Google's side.

We get invited to participate in user feedback meetings (through Google Hangouts of course). During these, we make feature requests that often eventually show up in releases and help prioritize features that are already planned or under development. I've even had one-on-one meetings with gcloud product managers.

Google BigQuery's public issue tracker[0] is also pretty decent.

All that being said, this is a (very welcome) exception for Google. Every time I've had to interact with the support system of a non-gcloud Google product/service I've walked away disappointed.

[0]: https://code.google.com/p/google-bigquery/
Isn't it as simple as a) do proper string handling in py2 unicode and b) if you write more u"" in a file than "", flip the switch and write "" and b"" instead?
This guy seems to just be a mark with too much money and too little sense.

You can almost hear the salesman saying "you'll save money on the electrican with this $200 light switch!"
Life Cycle of Data Science Projects
I don't understand how you can be bored. I understand how dumb people can be bored; they think they know everything, and they never bother exploring. Every conversation is the same superficial baloney.

I went to a world class university, having done math a year early and winning contests.

It's very, very easy for me to find something I don't understand. There's always some course or wikipedia or something that I can't just pick up and understand. So how could I ever be bored?

You mean socially bored rather than intellectually? These days it's not that hard to find other smart people, is it?
To be serious Adam, what is the reason for this:

> human tendency of blaming externalities as to avoid serious self reflection

Everybody does it but you have to wonder why. What is the evolutionary purpose of denial?

Surely changing one's mind is often easier than changing the externalities, and surely the ability to change one's mind is the essence of adaption and adaptability? Or are we wrong to think so?

The only thing I can think of is that perhaps tribal signaling has a higher survival value for sinister reasons e.g. it's all very well an individual could introspect and change his/her mind but ultimately the next time there is a pogrom it better be very goddamn clear that you're a Red team/Blue team member...
Not going to be awkward at all!
In fact first step is never use "", always use b"", I guess..
What's bad about wireless? I don't think that's why the smart home of this person turned out to be a terrible experience.

For example he describes how adding a generator made influenced the lighting. That didn't sounded like a wireless problem, but a problem with either the relays or mosfets/igbts that were used for switching or dimming, or the power circuitry that made the chips reset in those units.

There are also wired systems that use the existing wires for example. It's just apples and oranges and I don't think wireless vs wired is the issue at hand here.
We don't have to wonder about this. It's come up more than once before SCOTUS, and SCOTUS decisively rejected the idea. To apply border crossing doctrines to a search, the case has to have some nexus with an actual border crossing.

People live a couple miles from the Canadian border do not, in fact, lose their 4th Amendment rights.
Have you ever gotten a political party "survey." You get this large packet, very expensive feeling, with a "serial number" on it so it looks custom for you. You go through the survey questions, and they are all right down the middle of how you feel about the country. "Yeah! I want us to ____!" You get hyped up knowing that the party will really deliver (this time).

And then you get to the end and it's got a donation form to give to the party, so that they can do everything you filled out in the survey. Probably very effective for many party members who don't think about it deeply.

Now, does that sort of campaign marketing material present a moral problem? I think it's just good marketing.

We could make a broader point about how all marketing wants you to envision yourself with [product / experience / political leader] and how that will make your life better. Is it all lies? Mostly. Is it immoral? Nah, it's just marketing :-)
> to support a field, you need a mechanism that allows causal propagation - which is exactly what isn't allowed across an event horizon.

That's because the event horizon is a lightlike surface. Causal propagation isn't allowed across any lightlike surface. For example, there are lightlike surfaces that contain the event where you are right now. Causal propagation isn't allowed across them. Yet QFT works just fine in your vicinity.

What the Reddit questioner apparently did not realize is that the event horizon is defined globally, not locally. In other words, its location is defined in terms of the global properties of the spacetime, not in terms of any local properties. Locally, the EH is just a lightlike surface, and is no different, from a QFT point of view, from any other lightlike surface.
I don't see the problem; reading and writing different encoding works fine. The CSV module makes no problems either:

in_file = open("in.csv", 'r', encoding='latin-1')
in_csv = csv.reader(in_file)
out_file = open("out.csv", 'w', encoding='utf-8')
out_csv = csv.writer(out_file)
out_csv.writerows(row for row in in_csv)
Obsolete is a funny word to use. In this case, it would mean that Python 2 is in good working order, but is no longer wanted. That's bound for a flame war, because:

- There is a community that wants it (largely enterprise).

- The Python team does not want it.

A less controversial word is deprecated - the Python team is discouraging use of Python 2, but not prohibiting it's use or development. That's fair, and if you read this page:

https://wiki.python.org/moin/Python2orPython3

they are not very opinionated about it, largely saying "Use 3, unless you can't, then use 2 and start trying to migrate, unless you can't, then just use 2."

I will say, not to give somebody a bad day but, 2.8 seems like a bad idea. Currently python's development has still largely been a straight line, which is good for transitioning, but 2.8 would cause a fork. It would give a lot of people a short-term win for a long-term lose. Better not to tempt people.
Nobody should believe me, but I kind of expected something like this would happen. People just wants to keep using 2.7, and let the language evolve slowly over time, as is happening with PHP, for example. So if 2.7 development was officially stopped, someone will continue with it unofficially.
"Send the link below to other people. If two or more people will install this file and pay, we will decrypt your files for free."
Then the solution is not a right to be forgotten, but fixing the specific issues you addressed. It's like applying a bandage without removing the shrapnel.
So I don't fully follow it all -- but I find it really fascinating. Perhaps the real value at twitter is not the service twitter offers of letting you communicate 140 characters at a time but the engineering that goes on behind the scenes.
This is a nice game. Here are some strategy tips:

* Expand as fast as you can! That first resupply is crucial.

* This game rewards early aggression, especially if you've manage to get a big initial resupply.

* Flank! Large armies and particularly cities can be serious threats, but taking them isn't a victory requirement. Maneuver and look for your enemy's capital.

* Ignore AI cities until you're well established.

* Plan command chains so that you can move forces from several cities simultaneously.
Its the only T series laptop in the T46x generation that has a removable external battery.

a. Its built like a tank

b. It doesnt offer either a dgpu or a high resolution screen. For me this is a positive. On every recent laptop I have tried I have come to regret a high dpi screen or a discrete gpu since both those things compromise on battery and thermals extensively. Giving up on these two features means you win a lot back in terms of real world comfort. This includes my 2013 Mac Pro with the Nvidia card - the thermals / battery life on that are iffy. Apple does better than other vendors at extracting battery life out of a discrete GPU but that is not saying much.

c. I own some Intel 750 nvme drives on my desktop. For all the work I do I dont see a measurable improvement when I am using those over the sata drive that comes with the T460.

d. I do admit that over time I have begun to lean into the less is more philosophy when it comes to hardware.

e. Getting 15 hours of real world battery and then hot swapping the external to get 9 / 10 more really changes the way I use this thing.

This is only the second machine I have owned where I am tempted to order a second machine to stash away for future use.
Haha... this is the most Python thread ever.
The Amsterdam Airport has them all over the place and they always seem to work.Considering the distances involved, they are very convenient.
Super fun.

The starting position makes the game unbalanced at times. Starting close to a border in a corner is a major advantage.
Had one enemy whose base was located inside a area that was only accessible trough a narrow valley. Super easy to defend.
Dell enterprise support is great. Support for cheap, plasticky, consumer stuff - not so much.
I think both of you are talking past each other here.

The crux of your argument is that an outsider may be able to pattern-match better than industry insiders/domain experts. In other words, an outsider can recognize a potential solution by translating his/her experience with an efficient solution from a different industry.

He is saying that you need to properly understand things from the perspective of an industry insider before you declare that your solution is disruptive. In other words, you need to understand why things are the way they are before talking of reformation. This is the central lesson behind Chesterton's famous "Taking a Fence Down" [0] quote.

[0] https://www.chesterton.org/taking-a-fence-down/
Played the game a bit, on my 4th game a guy game steaming through with his full army going through exactly the only route he could take, blindly, to my slightly lower army general.. Hmm, really makes you think.
It's a great story because it's honest. Nothing in life is free and growth is messy and painful. You could have spent a lifetime at any steady gig and never seen anywhere near what you have seen in the past year. The good stuff is out here on the dangerous part of the limb. :)
Yes, of course!
Damn, I read it too fast ... sorry.
Well, kinda. Sometimes the government has to jump in to save the jobs, sometimes they just move the pension funds for the employees around and find a way to pay that out to the shareholders, etc.
> What a terrible, terrible situation. Now you'll have "python" code that will neither run on 2.7 nor run compliantly on 3.x.

I don't say you are wrong, but I am afraid this situation looks "terrible" only to people who do care about 3. If someone doesn't care about it and thinks that he can survive with never porting to 3 or start using it, for those people the situation isn't that terrible...from that perspective, his 2.7 language evolved to next step, and he know that new features can be used if he upgrades from 2.7 to 2.8.
To a large part the difference is what comedians call "punching up" vs. "punching down" – Making fun of born-again christians is a bit more legitimate because they're 40% of the (US) population and have an insane amount of power compared to the hardcore atheists insulting them. It's quite different from being a muslim in a predominantly christian country being subjected to abuse by the majority.

It's also a bit more legitimate because those radical atheists usually come from within the society they're criticizing. Not always in the sense of having been devoted christians themselves, but just being white and born in the US means you're more of the "in-group" of a white christian than others.

I'd also like to mention that you're operating from a stereotype of "average leftists" that I feel is overly broad. What you see on tumblr (or what you see when someone shares a screenshot that looks like tumblr) is far away from the average. Regarding uber, check this 500-comment threat to see that there are many people on HN critical of their business practices, especially in regards of drivers' rights and wellbeing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9731963
> And we are not wild about Python 3.x's attempt to imitate a classical object oriented style.

Curious. What do you mean by that?
Awesome game, my basic strategy revolved around capturing as much as possible, as fast as possible regardless of troop counts. Then just trying to confuse them by going on as many fronts as possible.
It's the labor theory of value in action. "We put in the labor, labor is intrinsically worth something, because we're giving you something that's worth something, it should be appreciated by you and by the wider community."

But that only works when you're in the programming equivalent of a 20 member socialist commune. It doesn't work at scale, and the Linux kernel is the effing king of large open-source projects. At scale, you must have standards to ensure the value added is higher than the cost of maintenance. Who's going to set the standards if not the kernel maintainers? The contributors? That's anarchy, leading to collapse. The wider community, in some democratic fashion? Easiest way to kill momentum and thus kill the project.
This seems like a cool idea! Are there tools to automate the translation from C to SaferCPlusPlus?
The RTBF is not a valid right, is censorship, and is at its core contrary to free speech and the freedom of the internet.
Thanks! I might have to give this a try. I've been considering writing more, and this seems like it would be fitting for me.
Overall I found your response rather cynical. Implying law being broken is required for a previous comment to be a valid point is harsh.

The comment is valid, I don't think your premise is valid because I don't think the lines were sufficiently drawn to either a prescriptive or descriptive concept established in law. I also think the "ethical" premise is invalid equally.

I'm allowed to think premises are invalid and speak up on them; as of yet there hasn't been a convincing enough argument towards the 'ickiness' of using handwritten typefaces in a letter to possible voters to convince me otherwise.

If you're going to sit there and call that cynical, fine. That's on you, but I still think both premises are broken.
All changes are controversial. In a large enough group, there's no way to make everybody happy. The question is whether the new arrangement makes more people happy long term. Judging by the rate of Python 3 adoption, it took a long time indeed, but it got there.

As for Python 2... well, there are still people signing petitions for Microsoft to bring back VB6. Last one was this year, I think.
>Perhaps the AES key is encrypted with RSA after encryption is complete and kept on the infected machine.

I think this is how PKE is usually done, precisely for the reasons you mention.
Anyone who started a Python project in the last TEN YEARS had full information ahead of time - pep 3000 came out in April 2006.

Honestly, that 10 years later we're still having this conversation is ridiculous.
It sounds like bashing.

Here's my unfinished, but working code, interfacing Google Apps Script to Purescript
https://github.com/kika/purescript-google-appsscript/tree/ma...

Please tell me what is so _dead_ in it.

Though I'm pretty new to Purescript and to the Haskell world in general, it took me almost no effort to write this code once I figured out how Data.Function (renamed Data.Function.Uncurried in the latest Purescripts) works. Probably your issue with Purescript FFI was about not being aware of these helpers (which don't do much help per se, but remove ugly clutter of nested functions in JS code).
I think I know what you mean.

But all I can do is infer from your words. That is "understand" you. Now I can "understand" you and still disagree and fight you with all my might, guile, wisdom etc.

And I don't feel that I need to become one with you to understand you. Because I can't. You and I are two different people. I would need exactly your experiences from exactly your perspective: to be you - exactly you. But I am different and all I can do is infer an approximation of these experiences. Are these proxy experiences "enough" to understand you? I don't know.

---

What are your choices? Admit defeat? Not functioning within a defective system at all? Go live in the woods or in the desert? Put your head in the sand and refuse to understand a system because of _fear_ of corruption?

There is a middle ground though. Why not understand enough of its potential for good and enough to avoid its weaknesses and maybe (_maybe_) have a chance to fix them?
It's better than being a fool. I've lived my life just on the edge of being capable of an original thought. I find it kind of agonizing.

From your testimony and Throwaway's it seems most of your problems are due to externalities of other's comparative stupidity. An 8-foot tall man feels out of place in a world built for 5'10 people, through no fault of his own but also through no fault of the comparative midgets. We may have done a disservice to smart people by attaching such stigma to Mensa and other high-IQ societies. A sufficiently selective club or workplace seems like it would solve most of your problems. It also strikes me that once we can select for high-IQ alleles, it might be best to narrow the bell curve even as we raise the mean past your and Throwaway's level.
I didn't mean inventions, necessarily, just a high-paying job where you can retire early, certainly programming is like that today for a brilliant and even a somewhat less than brilliant person. I'd expect that if you loathe spending time on things you aren't inherently interested in, you might be willing to suffer through a few years of that to then never have to do it again. (This is how I thought about things at age 15, at any rate, and I'm pretty sure my intelligence wasn't nearly high enough relatively to how unimpressive my people skills were.)
I buy your argument about frameworks providing structure. And most software projects are a untestable spaghetti mess, it's not because of vanilla JS though, spaghetti code have been written in many different languages. The problem is inexperienced engeneers, and old design patterns in school books, like Classes ;)

I've been designing software for over 15 years and here's some tips that works well for JS and probably other languages too:

1) Avoid code couplings, if you keep couplings at a minimal, you only have to test the code once and it will never break.
2) Modular code: All dependencies should be contained! Dependencies should be branched, not entangled/complexed
3) Independent functions: Functions should not have any dependencies from the outside scope, not even other functions if possible. Use lexical modules and sub-functions.
4) Event listeners: Have independent "micro services" that listen for events instead of orchestrating.
5) Abstractions: Make it possible to use functions/modules without knowledge about the abstracted code.
6) Avoid state =)