skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> You know a WHOLE LOT of people would rather make 500k a year than 300k even if it means their employees are damn near homeless and malnourished. See: any biz with min wage employees in the US.

Nah, sorry. That's just over the top and not true. I worked two separate minimum wage jobs before I was 20, and both had owner / operators who made no where near that kind of money. One was an entrepreneur who was losing money every year, but believed he had a good product that could grow with franchises (and it did). The other ended up having his collection of businesses go under due to Netflix (they were video stores).

Minimum wage does not imply improperly priced labor. While it is not a living wage in much of the United States, to assume it is purely exploitive is also an overdramatized statement.

I'm not exceptionally well versed in minimum wage theory, so my opinions are based on listening to numerous Econtalk podcasts on the subject (https://goo.gl/IbKS1F). Some argue for an elimination of the minimum wage, others for a vast expansion at the federal level, others for a broader expansion at the state level.

My personal observation is that the minimum wage discussion is interesting, but mostly just the tip of the ice berg and serves as more of a distraction around more meaningful conversations.
1. Minimum wage accounts for less than 2% of the hourly workforce in the United States (https://goo.gl/Q9S2Mf). Looking at it on a state by state basis, that number increases; however, let's focus on the federal wage for now.
2. There are more than seven times more people in the United States (14M+) who are either unemployed (seeking but can't find work) or underemployed (have work, but are seeking more) :: https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS13327709
3. There are over 60M Americans who work hourly jobs in the United States, and 4.6M will have to find new work each year due to regular turnover in the market (I don't have my citations handy for this one, have it in a document that is missing the citation, but I'm confident on the figure).

For a worker working 32 hours at the 8.25 minimum wage, they can expect to make $264 / week. Give them a 10% raise, and they're at $9.075, or $290.40 / week. Or, alternatively, let's give that worker better access to full employment, and they reach 40 hours, but only make $8.25 / hour, or $330 / week.

Given an average number of weeks of 52.1429 per year our example workers can expect to make:

Fully Employed Minimum Wage: $17,207.15
Under Employed Higher Wage: $15,142.29

In this very simple example (with some assumptions that are admittedly contrived), the fully employed minimum wage worker is in fact, better off. They are still impoverished, they still have a tough life and will not be able to have many luxuries; however, full employment, in this example, is more optimal when purely looking at salary.

Full employment, mixed with increasing wages, and decreasing prices of goods and services, is the combination we should all be striving for.
Can't Download XXx: Return of Xander Cage Full HD MP4 Movie
And yet I've heard lots of women don't like it when advanced are made on them when they are at Tech meet ups.
I actually just meant that assigning a value of infinity to something makes comparison between that and the non-infinite really tricky (I mean I might accept that quality is 10X superior to quantity [assuming the mythical 10X engineer], but infinitely superior?)

But your point is also good. My first big application was basically sunk because a coworker froze up on making some functionality because he couldn't figure out a way to do it perfectly - that is to say he knew no matter what that he would have to rewrite that functionality in 6 months to a year, as a consequence he spent nearly 2 months not doing anything trying to figure out how he wouldn't need to do that rewrite.
I got a really strange vibe from this article. Sounded like the author is in the business of selling VPs/CxO. At least it felt a bit odd that this was explicitly mentioned a couple of times (the bit about not taking a VP intor was really irky). I've heard that the management team is more important for SaaS businesses (as are old school sales people) but I dunno...was a bit odd.
By the way, people seem to think Han unification was forced on CJK users by evil white people from Unicode (there was an article like this in modelviewculture once), but it was contributed by the relevant Asian governments.

And of course China already made much larger changes in real life by creating Simplified Chinese.
Which, if actually useful, will be cloned and potentially opened.
From what I gathered one of the biggest problems of stored procedures is that they do not play well at all with source control and associated tooling such as code review.
Can you give details why you "feel" that way about Elixir?
Your thesis on maths is incorrect. Indeed, the way it is th aught uses a single language (just like introductions to compsci uses c-like languages). But professionals in different areas of maths use very different languages and tools. Results in algebraic topology may be totally incomprehensible for people in probability theory (and vice verse), not because it's too difficult, but simply because they are not familiar with the language.
Absolutely true. Bad developers are not the ones who don't carry their weight. Bad developers pull the whole team backward.
Absolutely. SQL is great, and having the DB just give you the correct data from the get go is convenient. But in the case where complex logic is necessary, SQL is much more difficult for correct implementation than something more expressive.

You _could_ delve into cursors or long merge statements or what have you, but in business logic specifically, the code will be read and altered numerous times by several different people. In that case, a language made specifically for expressive statements is significantly easier to deal with. That's not to say that I believe the opposite is true and that _everything_ should be done in programming space. I just think there is a better balance that can be achieved, and to default having everything in either category probably means you're not balancing correctly.
Not strong enough of a package. Add some features to sell it. Safety, design features, testing support, concurrency and more...
Doug McIlroy, the author of the message referred to in this thread.
Not sure if anyone's posted this yet. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbE1S-i_gz4
Does it even have built in concurrency?
> Why re-write what has already been done?

Because we can do better. For example, look at Mir GLAS, written in D.

https://github.com/libmir/mir-glas
Good thoughts about GNU Hurd https://www.reddit.com/r/hurd/comments/273tij/hurd_the_minix....
It looks very nice, I like that you can have beautiful syntax and performance at the same time.

But it lacks a modular interface for modules and libraries that does not import hidden/global variables. They should look at NodeJS for inspiration.
It does seem like English is becoming more dominant and more dominant. There are cafes in Berlin now where staff speak no German as the city becomes more and more international, and one of the daily papers recently decided to do a regular English language version. As far as the expat community goes here, it's probably more important that you speak English than German (ideally both of course). I am curious to see how this plays out over the next 10-20 years, although I can't see English taking over fully.

Of course it's much easier to learn a new programming language, than it is to learn a new natural language. You can't pick up German over the weekend, until we figure out the technology to help us do that.
Cross-platform development with Xamarin (reddit chat)
X.509 Certificate Processing
The problem is, if you need an arsenal of bullets, C++, for all its messiness, fits the bill.
Final Cut Pro X Crack 10.2.3 Full Version Free Download
You can plan, design, and engineer around things you don't know. Civil engineers have been doing it for a while now, maybe we should keep notes.
The problem is that as you said it takes a 'serious effort', and yet you think you were "lucky"(perhaps experienced, intuitive, mature, knowledgable enough), but other teams that aren't so "lucky" make the same effort without the results and get frustrated, because is frustrating to be late all the time. So I can understand that some people just want to drop estimations, but I don't agree. I wrote a comment below on why still we need estimations and how I think the risk and frustration could be reduced.
> that dynamism is precisely why I use Ruby

Could you elaborate? I've never felt like I really needed a dynamic language but that might be because among dynamic languages I only know Python and a little Javascript. I still use them, but I don't feel like I really take advantage of the fact they are dynamic.
Factors That Influence the Success of an SMS Marketing Campaign
Parametrising Code Over Modules: Towards Backpack in Practice
> most discoveries will be made by those who enjoy discovery, not by those who view it as a means to reach utopia.

This contradicts the common adage "necessity is the mother of invention". I am building software every day to try to solve problems in my neighborhood... you seem to be saying people like me rarely invent anything, but coders who just do projects on the weekend for fun do. Why?
Amazing... I really love this course. I teach it to my students it is great!
Piwik 3.0.0
Programming languages are often not standards in any official capacity. They are created by and for a cummunity who is expected to learn on a constant basis. IMO the proliferation of new programming is a good thing, potentially creating new ways of approaching problems, or at least iterating on existing proven languages.
Desoldering is all much faster if you have hot air and some tweezers.
Do you really need to define code at runtime? Why not at compile time? Need to pull in templates and macros made by someone, but not the code that uses them?

Plugins have a long tradition already, starting with the old dlopen and loadLibrary. Even in C++ (mostly) you can have it done, just look at Qt.
The minnowboard has GPIO connectors, and has already managed to boot Haiku in UEFI mode. A bit expensive though.
JavaScript is a great example because if it wasn't completed there wasn't anything in particular that we know of that could have been sure to win.

I wonder how much worse it could have been. The only thing really competing with JavaScript in its early years was VbScript. If Netscape didn't make a solution, Microsoft probably would have. And that would most likely have been something like VbScript. Not infinitely worse, but quite a bit worse.
RE: NPE's - I have a feeling that'll be abused just like void * and interface{}. People will just start throwing Nil around everywhere as a catch-all. You need a stronger construct like Option<T>, Maybe, language-level nullable types, or a mechanism for the caller to handle it dynamically (a la unwind-protect/conditions).

The problem you end up getting is basically the dual of the 'expression problem'. You get easy type expandability with class augmentation by these semantics, but any client of the type is subsequently bound to deal with any augmentation of the type. (I.e., if in the method defining class 'a', you insert an elseif in between the consequent and the alternative of type Bool, you now just extended the class signature of 'a' to Int32 | String | Bool. Assuming all consumers of 'a' need exhaustive handling, you've opened your class and extended its functionality at the expense of code which had previously satisfied the dependencies to consume 'a' safely.

Crystal still remains a real interesting project to follow. I haven't examined the Crystal type system too carefully, but the concept of Parent+ as virtual types is an interesting concept that is certainly worth exploring.
It's my impression that gross profit includes marginal costs, but not overhead.

I can't speak for the author, but every SaaS company I have been involved with had marginal costs such as customer support. When you are a tiny company and these tasks are performed by founders you could perhaps roll these costs into overhead and claim 100% gross profit. But as a growing company it would become clear that you need to hire someone for every X customers.
The Math Behind Venture Capital: Meaningful VC Exits
That's because i wrote that comment :)
What exactly do you find missing with shards? Its simple, its decentralized, and it works great. Most of all its a standard.
This manifesto had to be written as a formulated statement of a pure developer.

But it probably can not be used as a manual for the software developer in a larger organization, because it puts the software developer out of context.

A good software developer should always act inside his/her envronment and take all stakeholders in the software into account: the ones actually developing, the ones coming up with ideas on how to develop, the ones coming up with ideas on how to sell the developed stuff, the ones trying to check if the developed stuff is working and so on. A good software developer does not only understand the limitations he/she has to cope with but on an abstract level also those affecting the other stakeholders. Only if one understands the system one can work most efficiently inside of it. So, to all developers, learn a bit about management, about marketing, about selling and testing.
Sure you can, but do they always deliver on time ? There are may cases that come to my mind like the new Berlin airport or Panama canal's expansion.
> > It is hard to run Windows Server…

> It's really not, it's that most devops engineers don't want to learn or even bother and most windows sysadmins simply don't know how.

From a hiring/project/management perspective, this is my definition of "hard".

From a sysadmin perspective, a huge problem is the amount of knowledge needed to be an effective windows sysadmin absolutely dwarfs -- by several orders of magnitude -- the amount of knowledge needed to be effective on Linux.

How many sysadmins have you heard suggest, with all credulity that the solution is downtime and a reinstall on Windows? on Linux? Once a sysadmin knows how to move files around, run strace and grep, there is very little hidden from them on Linux, while on Windows they still don't even know how to take a backup, which is helped less by Microsoft refusing to publish any documentation that makes them look stupid -- like it being impossible to take an on-line backup of a server running Microsoft Exchange 2007 prior to SP2.

> I don't can't think of a single CI or automation thing that works with Linux that you can't do in Windows if pushed I can probably come with considerably more things which are opposite.

I agree wholeheartedly with that statement.

I hope that UNIX sysadmins want to learn, and bother to learn well the Windows environment better: UNIX sysadmins already know how a system is supposed to work, and it is by large the sheer number of inexperienced Windows sysadmins that make Windows look stupid. UNIX sysadmins have a better chance of running Windows well simply because they won't put up with "have you tried reinstalling everything"?

There's also some really good ideas in the Windows ecosystem that Linux (and even OSX) could really benefit from.

> Licensing is the only thing really that makes windows machines a pain to work with unless you are big enough for a sell reporting volume licensing scheme.

An aside: I'm not so sure this is true anymore, at least not with Azure for infrastructure, and Open programs for desktops/laptops.
If you are looking for a great user experience, maybe you should think well before you start with Xamarin.
But you can't use `std::ptr::null()` in the same way that you use null in the other languages mentioned there. It's literally just there for C interop, and it's called that because that's the terminology that C uses.

For finding an analogue for the typical null use case in Rust, one would use the `None` variant of the `Option` enum.
What makes a canonical approach ideal? In my experience, there are few jobs worth having that provide a bible. I can see that a bible would be a convenient teaching aid, but it misses a great opportunity to teach research skills as well as critical thinking and discretion.
Please let me know if I'm way off base.
Ask HN: Finance from first principles?
Does anyone know a book/resource that explains major financial concepts from "first principles"

I'm not looking for a book on investing. I'm looking for something much lower level, that dives into the inner-workings of financial systems and how those systems have evolved over time.

To make an analogy with computing, I'm looking for something like SICP or "The Elements of Computing Systems" but for finance.
Frankly, all this article did is remind me all the reasons why I hate the startup and particularly VC world.
Wifi cable
Here's another issue about Firefox using 100% CPU https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/342
Eagerly awaiting a response from the GH team. Assuming all the DMCA stuff was handled correctly they need to restore ASAP. How they handle this is (or should imo) be a very good yardstick for deciding if you want to host your FLOSS project with them, apart from the technical reasons.
I don't agree. Just in case the project is too small, maybe it's not worth. But for the rest of the projects is a very good option, mainly if you have to work with different platforms
You must not have taken a very close look because the concurrency story is already great (and will one day turn in to a great parallel story), the built in testing library has a very useful set of assertions and an RSpec like BDD syntax, and safety far exceeds Ruby -- the compiler knows the type of all variables and won't ever let you make an "undefined method foo for Nil class" type of error.
An interesting thing: https://github.com/crystal-lang/crystal/blob/master/src/conc...

Looks like they took the Fiber concept of ruby and made it into something like goroutines, with channels handling.
I don't need a dynamic language. But for many tasks, I want one. For others, I have languages that are, to be honest, more expressive than Crystal--C++ or C# or Kotlin or Scala. I would not attack Ruby problems in those languages, nor would I in Crystal. Don't get me wrong: it's more expressive than Go, so that crowd should totally pile on Crystal and make it better 'cause I'd rather have to deal with Crystal, which while I think it's not really anything special I don't think it's bad, and to me that's a big step up. But they won't, so, whatever. Anyway, moving on.

`include`, `extend`, and `prepend` are used a lot in Ruby because the very mutable nature of class definitions allows for powerful metaprogramming without having to do a lot of work--and all are, and can't not be, runtime-evaluated. I regularly build objects in Ruby out of dynamically generated mixins reliant on runtime behavior. As do most people. Consider ActiveRecord (which I don't care for, but it's a good example). You create a class that inherits from ActiveRecord::Base--and, at runtime, it queries the database and builds a set of methods for the class based on the schema of its table. Or something like dry-struct, which evaluates, at runtime, a set of attribute specifications and dynamically creates the API for accessing it (as well as validators, etc., which can be programmatically devised).

And that's not even taking into account a plugin architecture that is functionally "require this file" and being able to interpret it at runtime; Exor, linked above, is a lot of pretty finicky work to simulate a worse version of that in C#. Or the general usefulness and value of monkey-patching in a lot of contexts. Oh, and I can drop `binding.pry` into any spot in my code and have a REPL in which I can define methods on existing classes, inline, and build functionality that I can then dump out into my editor. Compiled languages that do that are, er, rare. (JRebel and hot reloading isn't as nice as just doing it.)

Ruby isn't the perfect tool. But when I want to write a little code to do a lot and don't have many other concerns, that's why I go to it. That's why something like Chef uses it instead of the programming mistake of 2014-2016 (using YAML for everything). Because nothing code-related expresses intent better than code itself, and Ruby is built around making that easy for me when I can think about classes and modules as things that exist rather than immutable blueprints off in the ether.
I do not know, but if wood (or biomass) was noticeably cheaper than fossil fuels, I would think there was no need for climate agreements and there would be a large industry shipping wood from Canada and Siberia to use as a fuel.
Sure, but it is a normal metric pint (0.5L) - and the demi is 250mL.

In the UK and US they still have ye olde measures - 568.3mL and 473.2mL respectively.
Except the french pint is metric (50 cl).
Pints are sold as pints but its marked up as 568ml on the glass.

Milk was the same for a while and you still see it occasional though we've gone to liters mostly.

Most things are metric now though.
Oh, you definitely don't want to hit on girls at a tech meetup, they can be uncomfortable enough for females as it is. What I meant is you make friends at meetups and those friends either evolve into a relationship, or introduce you to someone else who you become involved with.

Also, tech meetups are probably different all around the world, but here in NZ they are not the right place to be hitting on people or even making friends really. I was thinking more along the lines of meetups which were non-tech related, like exercise meetups, meetups around films or literature, or around food and socialising.
You can take a look at Crystal for Rubyists (http://www.crystalforrubyists.com/book/chapter-08.html) for more info on Channels and Fibers.
I'm sorry what?

Crystal's type system is both expressive and safe compared to most languages. It has generics, tagged type unions and dynamic dispatch.

It has a built in spec runner and testing suite which are highly usable and proven on the compiler.

Most of all, it is already concurrent. Crystal has lightweight fibers implemented in assembly for x86, arm and arm64. It has channels to communicate between fibers. All io is evented by default, where the http server manages over 100,000 requests per second per core.

Its obvious to me you don't know what you're talking about.
Adoption of HTTPS on Digital India Services
> Do you really need to define code at runtime?

The people who wrote Rails thought they did - it defines tons of code at runtime. We can't say that they needed to or not. Nobody needs a programming language abstraction. But it worked for them.
Honestly, if you're not a very good looking guy, you need to make up for that by being a interesting, confident, funny, and positive person. Emphasis on confidence. People seize on insecurity. If you're visibly insecure about your appearance, then yeah, it'll be an issue. The attitude you should have is "I think I'm great, I don't care what you think!" tinder is also the wrong thing for you because it's really for casual physical relationships where who you are as a person doesn't matter.
Notes on the Programming Language Lisp [pdf]
Most news sources filter, oversimplify and in some cases actively misrepresent the world to the extent that after consuming a typical news bulletin, you are less informed than you were before. Or at least, more misinformed than informed.

Weekly newspapers such as The Economist and The Week are better-than-average news sources.
The other way around. If you can get out with doing it the wrong way, why even care about there being a good way ?