skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Demagoguery strikes again.

"Demagoguery is an appeal to people that plays on their emotions and prejudices rather than on their rational side."

I'm sure you're just quoting this conveniently exonerating 'truth' for honest reasons.

Note: demagoguery works exceptionally well when using seemingly rational, preferably contrarian, arguments with a public that considers itself very rational and wouldn't dream of being persuaded by a narrative because it confirms their prejudices.
There's still one thing missing - graceful restart:

https://grisha.org/blog/2014/06/03/graceful-restart-in-golan...

BTW - to people new to Go this article may make it look like serving HTTP is complicated, but it's actually remarkably easy. And if you consider that it is actually _possible_ to have a complete server with just the standard lib (and with TLS and HTTP/2 to boot) running as a single process - compared to Python or Ruby, where because of the GIL you _must_ place an apache/nginx/haproxy in front of it and also run a bunch of unicorns or something similar on different ports (at which point you need something like Chef/Puppet to manage the config because it gets very complicated very fast) - this is actually pretty amazing.
When boomers retire and aren't given the pensions they promised, they'll be pissed off.

Maybe it wasn't so smart to tell the millenials "yeah, we promised you'd get a job after going to college, but, eh, tough luck things have changed."

I doubt there'll be much sympathy.
This is by far the best explanation I've read of where Machiavelli is metaphysically coming from: http://www.exurbe.com/?p=1429 . He was a true patriot for his people.
The reality is that windowing functions are well supported by all major RDBMSs (Oracle, SQL Server, DB2, Vertica, and to an extent Postgres and Volt - sqlite and MySQL are not serious contenders in this space).

As for readability I think it's subjective - I certainly prefer staring at a single complex SQL statement until I understand it over say reading through pages of imperative low-level code that accomplishes the same thing.
>> and CurvePreferences to avoid unoptimized curves

The key word being unoptimized. In the article, the code snippet has a comment "Only use curves which have assembly implementations" and he mentions that "a client using CurveP384 would cause up to a second of CPU to be consumed on our machines." (presumably because it does not have an assembly implementation)

> Programmers should not need to know this stuff.

It can sometimes be a sign of a leaky abstraction, but programmers might need to know the performance characteristics of the code they write.
At the same time, many public California institutions are outsourcing their IT and other infrastructure costs while laying off workers because of budgetary pressure. Just another case of the baby boomers destroying future generations for their own personal gain. Pension funds are basically pyramid schemes and are economically doomed.
> It starts with this, and then other things get added.

It doesn't even have to be done with additional laws; the bill specifies that "human trafficking hubs" must be blocked, but doesn't seem to define the term. It would be rather easy to start adding all sorts of things to that list.
I'm a little surprised by the responses to your comment. I'm a classic tech bubble millennial, but I grew up with home cooked meals every night, and I thought the formula (for dinners in particular) was obvious: One protein, one starch, and one vegetable. Variations on this could be things like "taco night" or "pasta" (throw in some meatballs, canned sauce, and maybe veggies if you're fancy) or other deviations from the formula, but most dinners are protein/starch/veggie.

When you go to the grocery store, you buy as if you're planning on being lazy all week, and envision yourself opening the fridge thinking "Hmmmm, how am I going to do the protein/veggie/starch combo tonight?" Things "belonging to one meal" lead to food waste. You just need general patterns for whipping dinners together based on what you have, and what's going bad soon.

Vegetables: Frozen/canned veggies that you like, bag salads, a bundle of asparagus (just remember to actually cook it in the next few days!)

Starches: Potatoes, rice, (or potato flakes, and pre-boiled rice if you need something fast), mac and cheese in a box, a box of pre-mixed couscous, some frozen side dish you microwave -- whatever.

Protein: Meat, obviously. Chicken's easy to freeze and easy to roast. Steak when it's on sale, pork chops. Sausages if you're in a German mood. If you want to be a little more heart healthy, you can mix this up with some Eggplant parmesan, or... I don't know. I was raised by a Texan, so my powers are useless here.

Just buy everything in relatively equal numbers, buy groceries so they're half and half "eat right away -- will go bad" and "can stay in the freezer/pantry forever" so that your stock of food is never too badly out of balance.

I rarely ever shop with a "complete grocery list," just like my parents didn't (we need paper towels, eggs, bread, and... uh, food, I guess). I use recipes only on special occasions (You need an instruction guide to tell you how to roast a chicken?), and you just manage somehow. You don't need an app, you don't need someone to decide what your groceries are for you, you don't need to break out the recipe book every night -- you just freaking make dinner. Just like you take out the trash, you do the dishes, you vacuum, you make dinner. It's not hard, it just takes practice.
I think the best (though not prefect) method to test new devs is with a take-home exercise, no time limit, that is representative of your domain. The key things I look for are:

- did they understand the requirements? If not, did they ask for clarification?

- did they choose appropriate abstractions?

- is the code easy to read? Is it overengineered? Are they trying to show off by overcomplicating things, or optimising prematurely?

- the simpler the solution, the better

- are the tests good, readable, not too brittle

I then ask them how would they extend the code to fit new/changed requirements, they don't necessarily need to write any extra code in my presence, whatever they're most comfortable with.
It's so weird that the Dodge Caravan is considered the first minivan. I remember the Dodge Colt Vista pre-dating it by a year. I guess the Vista wasn't called a minivan, though.
Well, in this case the newspaper is owned by a tech billionaire (Bezos), so maybe not the best case study.
> It can work 99% of the time, but if that 1% it breaks down and I have to revert to a device with a screen, it kind of ruins the point.

I don't think your statistics makes any sense.

99% of the time, you save time by speaking your intent, vs interfacing with your phone. That time saved is meaningful and outweighs the 1% of the time you have to fall back to your screen device.

99% of the time, you can use your hands/fingers for other tasks while speaking your intent. That allows you to multitask more efficiently.
Serious Ubuntu Linux desktop bugs found and fixed
Right. Science uses the word "theory" in the same sense as music theory. A scientific theory is a collection of related ideas that form a robustly cohesive whole, with the power to explain some set of phenomena.
Dictatorships also commonly decide what is fake news, not just casting doubt on truth. Thats why they limit media companies and control the news so closely.

This fake news narrative seems far more comfortable in a dictatorship then a free country.

The new yorks times was clearly pushing an agenda this election which is what ruined its reputation and made it on par with various propaganda sites. A poor decision which has ruined its credibilty.
I recently came across something like that for opensource Java code, called `grepcode`:

http://grepcode.com/file/repository.grepcode.com/java/root/j...

It supports quite a big number of Java code repositories it seems.

Edit: Also sourcegraph (linked in a link in a sibling post) does something similar:

https://sourcegraph.com/github.com/gorilla/websocket/-/blob/...
Well, part of the problem with our current society is that the social norm is to only look out for your own interest, and the public be damned.

This attitude is applicable to lawyers, who only represent their clients, to company executives, who only represent investors, to investors, who only care about their own returns, and to lobbyists, who only care about their lobby's interests.

This sort of system is fine when all parties to a dispute are equally organized and powerful, but it squeezes out the general public, who are not able to mobilize as effectively. It also forces people to focus on how to win, rather than how to cooperate more effectively for mutual benefit.

Unless we are willing to relax this attitude of 'only care about my own or my client's bottom line' at least a little bit, there is going to be little room for changes that are necessary to happen.
It is not unhygienic. The with-chip macro is understood as creating a lexical environment in which certain local identifiers are visible. There is no accident there; it is documented. You use the macro to obtain exactly that; as it's raison d'être.

> If I were to do this in Scheme, I'd use a "parameter" called 'current-chip' (think of it like a dynamically scoped variable) and write getter/setter procedures that operate on the current chip.

And then what, use the flimsy hack known as "fluid let" to locally rebind this parameter to a desired chip instance? Let's avoid lack of macro-expansion-time hygiene, by introducing run-time variable mutation?
A handful of those other frameworks wrap Material Design Light and/or Materialize in Vue components, so this eliminates that dependency and (theoretically) provides a cleaner API.

But https://vuematerial.github.io/ looks to have pretty similar "features" and is "Vue native" as well.
Of course knowing a programming language strongly biases someone to choose that language in a project. I also agree you will not find a lot of people (if any) using Fortran who have not been introduced to the language as part of their research, following the recommendation of someone senior (e.g. their advisor). However your original argument was that Fortran was only used because advisors were forcing their students to do so, and that Fortran would die out eventually along with those dinosaurs. I don't think this is true, and I don't think the fact that people generally don't just stumble into Fortran by themselves is any evidence to the contrary. As the original article points out, the reason that Fortran continues to be used is that it is the most suitable language for its domain (but of course not as a general purpose language)

The prerequisite for using Fortran is that someone works in a field that relies heavily on large scale, high performance numerical computation. Since Fortran is pervasive in that domain, it's extremely likely the they would be exposed to Fortran through "apprenticeship". Basically, most people who should be using Fortran are using Fortran! I've seen a few instances where people used C/C++ or Matlab in situations where Fortran would have been more appropriate. Matlab has its own drawbacks, but it is also a very domain-specific numerical language, and likewise its users are exposed to it through apprenticeship! C/C++ is still the default language for high performance computing outside of numerics, and thus it's not surprising that people who have not been exposed to Fortran would attempt to use it for numerical purposes as well.

There isn't exactly a lot of choice for numerical programming: Python and Matlab are (partly) designed with numerical purposes in mind, but don't scale to high performance. C/C++ are performant, but not expressive for numerics. There really isn't any other language that would even be in consideration, besides now Julia, but Julia is extremely new, so time will tell.

I don't know anything about Rust, but based on reading its Wikipedia article its not a language designed for numerics, but basically something designed to replace C++ for systems programming. Thus, like C/C++, it will be performant, but not expressive for numerical purposes.
Ah, thanks! I still have all sorts of leftover technology from it, like a database of thousands and thousands of grocery stores all over the US, their physical locations and websites, etc. and no idea what to do with it...

Here is a link to Basket. My partner and I were simultaneously super bummed but also excited to see the idea realized: https://basketsavings.com/
I doubt that any quantity of carrots would provide the satiety needed to overcome impulses to overeat with ultra-high-energy food.

A balanced diet containing a mix of vegetables, meat or meat substitute, and carbohydrates will provide this satiety and the necessary nutrients. And it will taste good.

A blame-centric approach only works on an individual basis. Using a blame-centric model is unlikely to be productive when addressing groups.
"Other studies based on comparisons between similar federal and private workers find either no wage gap or a federal wage advantage. A 2012 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) study found that, for comparable workers, federal wages were similar to private wages overall, with just a small two percent advantage for federal workers"
Looking at that report it looks like from a bachelors on up public sector workers get less compensation then private.
Visual Studio Code 1.8.1 Recovery Build
>Eating healthy food _is_ costlier than not caring about what you eat.

I don't believe this is true. I've never been able to eat out as cheaply as I can cook healthy food.
Github pages generated by Jekyll. Content is written in markdown which suits me perfectly.
Now we know something is up with dark energy and early inflation of the universe, essentially fudge-factors to make certain things appear nice.
I think it's very likely that we could avoid turning this into a zero-sum debate with one total-winner and one total-loser.

That said, I think there's no positive sum because some folks believe that (1) Promises should be the primary async story in JS, and (2) Promises must not allow communication between two parties who hold a reference to the Promise. This means that `async function`s must return a Promise, and the Promise but not have a `cancel()` method on it (because it would allow communication between two parties holding references to the Promise).

Others (I'll speak for myself here) believe that the return value of `async function` should be competitive (ergonomically) with generators used as tasks (I showed examples in the parent comment). Since generators-as-tasks can be cancelled (via `.return()` and `.throw()`), the desire to make `async function x` as ergonomic as `function* x` conflicts with the goal of disallowing the return value of async functions from being cancellable.

In Ember's case, since generators already exist, it's hard for us to justify asking application developers to participate in an error-prone (and verbose) protocol that we could avoid by using generators-as-tasks instead. And that is likely the conclusion that we will ship (and the conclusion that ember-concurrency has already shipped).

For me, the bottom line is that we have very little budget to introduce new restrictions on `async functions`, because people can always choose to reject async functions and use generators instead (with more capabilities and less typing!). I think the cancellation token proposal is well over-budget from that perspective.
I guess for language like Javascript there is no real alternative. If you want to push the language further without creating multiple dialects, you simply must have consensus among the major parties writing implementations. These parties most certainly would not give the language to hands of (benevolent) dictator and agree to implement what ever he comes up with.
DraftKings Average Results
[deliberately responding out of order]

> Your argument here sounds like it would be against having syntax highlighting

No, but syntax highlighting is just something that helps parsing a single page. I'm talking about "show documentation for function/var/whatever under cursor", "jump to definition", etc...

> There are varying levels of understanding (or desires to understand something). I use Python a lot. For a lot of the language and libraries my understanding is superficial; dicts have key/values, lists are ordered and mutable. As I use it more I'll dig ....

That "digging" is what I am talking about. Code is rarely read sequentially; it's reading docs for functions/classes/vars, jumping to definitions and finding call-sites. To do this, you need a very good understanding of the target language by the "viewer"-tool. Thus: You need an IDE for proper code reading. And probably still a good grasp on /usr/bin/find for those things your IDE cannot help you with.
In virtual environments, less (CPU’s) is more
If a issue has been fixed it makes little sense to continue to complain about it.
You may want to reread the HN guidelines. And although I am not a physicist, some HN readers are.
Not just one, but a number of "random billionaires" suddenly started to invest in rockets and spacecraft during the last decade.

I'd rather link it to something else: maybe CAD advancements, maybe material science, maybe avionics, maybe the release of some regulatory limitations. Likely all of these in concert.
That depends on how much is paid in and if it's mismanaged.

It's also recommended to have your 401k set to pay your final monthly pay for your remaining months. We think that's sustainable, don't we?

The real problem in America is gross mismanagement of pension funds. It's going to get worse. I live in a county where it was suddenly discovered administrators had been lying both about funding the pension and it's performance for years and now employees are screwed.
> wanted to show how valuable it would be, it would be difficult without an implementation

So implement it then. In the context of this site, we're talking software or hardware - what's it going to take - a weekend, a month, or a few months - nothing impossible or out of reason if it's a good idea and worth it.
What mailing list is that? I couldn't find it with a quick google search.
>Public union negotiations are always against the non-union taxpayers

Public sector unions drag up wages which has a ripple effect on non-unionized and non-public unions. (citation: http://www.epi.org/publication/briefingpapers_bp143/)

Public sector unions also become more powerful in concert with private sector unions and vice versa - strikes work much more effectively when they are synchronous.

It's not complicated economics.
Ricetta biscotti nesquik facile e veloce
> I always think, what would our system look like if we adequately funded our programs? Would the DMV be such a cesspool?

I suggest looking at the article's interactive graph. It tells me that

> DMV managers with at least 30 years' service earn an average yearly pension of $51,572. And they are eligible to retire at 55.

Now I don't vouch for the veracity of any of those numbers, but assuming they are somewhat accurate – $55,000/yr for life for 30 years of work (assuming you start at 25) sounds like pretty good funding to me.
I didn't mean to sound like I'm "discounting" this, though I guess I "discount" everything that hasn't had a cycle of security focused QA, let alone zero QA at all.

I bet, with no information other than what's supplied, that this system is insecure. It's not really a knock on Zuckerberg, just a statement based on my experience. I am totally open to being wrong, I just think we know more than nothing about hobby projects and their propensity to consider security secondary, tertiary, or not at all.

Admittedly, this is Mark Zuckerberg, so who knows, it might have been meticulously coded to be perfect. The guy's a bit of an obsessive, based on what I've read, so I would also not be surprised to find it's tightly locked down and very high quality code. I don't the guy, just the general situation.
> Only use curves

There you go again. Programmers should not be "using curves". It's idiotic to think the average programmer can make that kind of decision. And it's so very typical of the arrogant fools who develop certain software to expect or assume developers would or should know this stuff, and if they don't they shouldn't be writing software or such.
Four Design Thinking Contributions to Project Management
"One of the few voices of restraint back in 1999 belonged to Ronald Seeling, then CalPERS’ chief actuary. Asked to study differing scenarios for the financial markets, Seeling told the CalPERS board that if the pension fund’s investments grew at about half the projected rate of 8.25% per year on average, the consequences would be “fairly catastrophic."

Who decided on the projected rate of 8.25%, in the first place? Wouldn't that have been the work of the CalPERS’ chief actuary, Ronald Seeling?

The root cause of the problem was the actuarial assumption of an 8.25% rate of return. This is what allowed the new Defined Benefits to appear to be "free," and that is what enabled the board and politicians to ram this through.

Assuming an "average case scenario" of consistent 8.25% annual return on a pension investment portfolio is subjectively irresponsible, even in 1999. But more egregious is the fact that the actuarial profession failed miserably to recognise that the Defined Benefit was a financial guarantee similar to a put option, which means that the value of the put option should have been explicitly calculated - which would have been done by projecting scenarios using the "risk-neutral" rate of return (i.e. the yield on US government bonds) instead of the "real-world" rate (i.e. the super-optimistic assumption of 8.25% annual returns).

The article goes on to explain that the Chief Actuary ran 3 different scenarios: a "pessimistic" scenario of 4.4% returns, "average" scenario of 8.25% and "optimistic scenario" of 12.1%. This is the crux of the problem, and it is not the first time that such actuarial calculations have blown up a pension plan like this. The right thing to do would be to calculate a single "scenario" using the risk-neutral rate, which would have been lower than 4.4% in 1999 and today it would be closer to 0% ... That would have correctly valued the economic cost of pension benefit as a multi-billion dollar expense that no politician would be able to so easily ram through the legislative process.

"Lou Correa, then a freshman Democrat who carried the bill in the Assembly, said he fell victim to inexperience. He remembers seeing actuarial reports and assuming he’d “kicked the tires” and asked the right questions. Correa, now running for Congress in Orange County’s 46th district, said he should have sought independent financial advice."

I think Correa was reasonable in assuming that actuarial reports, signed by the Chief Actuary of CalPERS, would have properly "kicked the tires." That is what the actuarial profession is supposed to do. Just like if an engineer signs off on the construction of major transportation bridge, we can reasonably expect that that the bridge won't be be designed with fundamentally incorrect physics calculations.
I agree. I used to browse the front page of Reddit endlessly, especially on days off despite only caring about a few subreddits. Now that I consume them through my Feedly, I'm on Reddit much less. I have trouble trying to consume the Internet when I'm bored, which is good because that makes more time for reading books that help my career.
>Asked to study differing scenarios for the financial markets, Seeling told the CalPERS board that if the pension fund’s investments grew at about half the projected rate of 8.25% per year on average, the consequences would be “fairly catastrophic.”

8.25% per year? No one averages 8% per year growth. That's not even an optimistic projection, just a stupid one.