skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The equivalent of a function returning Result<T, E> in Rust would be returning something like unique_ptr<ResultBaseClass<T,E>> because the two subclasses have different sizes and thus can't be returned directly (or else one will be object slicing). The struct version stores everything inline from the start (it has a single static size) and so can be returned without needing a pointer.
This

http://blog.alinelerner.com/how-different-is-a-b-s-in-comput...

Is what she says about MS degrees in another post. No data or analysis is shown, just opinion.
The Bright, Sustainable Future of Chicago's Technology Ecosystem
I'm not sure if you're just being pedantic, but "the bus factor is high" in this instance means there is a high level of risk to the health of the OSS projects he maintains if he were to get hit by a bus.
Other than the Jeep Wrangler, few car-size vehicles are still built on truck frames. About 10% of SUVs still are, mostly the larger ones.
At Google, if you want to implement new features (or large refactoring), you'll need to write a design doc. In which, you should answer questions your reviewers might ask (common questions like: why do you want to do this, what are the alternatives, how components interactive with each other before/after your change). This is something like Python's PEP: you need a proposal to convince your reviewer that you have put thought into your change.

Real world examples of these design docs can be found at https://github.com/golang/proposal
Re (2): Glenn Hubbard (the dean you mention) has a relatively long history (depending on who you ask, of course) of having dubious ideas on economics. For example: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/10/culture-of-fraud..., Krugman's blog has lots of examples.

So in that context, writing a report "at the behest of Iceland's Chamber of Commerce" is pretty small potatoes. It's far more likely that they commissioned a report knowing Hubbard's own views in advance, which makes it dodgy as hell, but not quite corruption. And in any case, many of those arguments about market reforms and deregulation really ought to be assessed on merits (which are objectively poor), with who's paying for them being more of a side note. It's also arguable that a professional body would not solve these kinds of problems. It'd be hard to build an argument against a profession by focussing on just one hack.

Re (1): taking an economics model and pushing it to production involves a genuinely considerable amount of work. "Make more privately" would mean something along the lines of getting hired by a hedge fund as consultant. There are also other incentives involved: first, academia generally urges people to publish. Second, having a model be published is part of the way it is accepted by practitioners too: if you just come up with a random model, it would have to be insanely good to convince anyone to put their money behind it, otherwise they'll require you to get other people to assess it, and you'll have to publish it in a peer-reviewed journal. The exception would be really specialized models, where you think you found an arbitrage opportunity or something (even then it's not completely clear, see, e.g., the literature on selling deep out-of-money puts).
My dad owns a small chain of bike shops in Texas. I've posted about him before and some of you may remember the stories. He's been in business since 1971 and has seen it all. I was back home for the holidays last week and stopped by dad's store to see what's new. He had a bunch of e-bikes on the floor. I chuckled when I saw them--they're so antithetical to the sport of cycling--but my old, crusty former-bike-racer dad loved them and raved about their benefits. He's been selling a ton of them! The ones he sells have German-designed (maybe German-made?) Bosch motors and batteries. They're well-built and perfect for a quick run to the grocery store. I can't say I'd ever buy them but after seeing how many they're selling, I'm confident that they're here to stay and will be a mainstream product for most bike shops next year.
Thank you for your encouragement acemarke :)
That, I'm afraid, would be too rigorous for this blog.
> or spread out on grass, as shown in illuminated manuscripts of surprisingly tranquil and unsteady laundry days.

Wait, what's an unsteady laundry day?
We see posts like this daily (and I know this article is more about AI) but there's still no low priced robotic arms on the market. it's almost 2017, but there's no dishwasher unloader or any other meaningful service robots except from an automatic vacuum cleaner..
Describing software systems is not hard because of syntax.
„If you think that 2016 was a terrible year ask a copyright activist“

If you have problems watching this video, here you find it on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2OyBuIPK4U
Yeah, like I said, there is nothing wrong with MOOCs, but I would not put them on my resume as a candidate nor would I value them as a positive signal from an employer's point of view when I see them on a resume.
Not sure if you were sarcastic or not but judging by how the history of automation happened in the past I'd say that all the benefits of the "technical advancements" you mention will be pocketed by the owners of the "means of production", i.e. the employers/capitalists, while the employees themselves will be left with lower wages because of the smaller pie (less work to throw around).

Some other HNers will then probably chime in and say that me painting all this as a zero-sum-game is probably wrong, to which I'll retort that I'd like to be proven wrong but this time around it does actually look like there's nothing else hidden in the bag of goodies, it's us (the employees) vs them (the employers).
Nice! Would it be possible to add sheet music export to this? Or maybe output midi file? I've had "generative tool for sight reading practice sheets" on my todo list for a while now, and it seems all that's missing here is the output!
I'd like to make a basic prediction about UBI. Maybe the Internet wayback machine can check me in 10 years.

Debate about the UBI will be driven not by facts, but by culture and how we perceive ourselves. I predict that in the US, where culture of entrepreneurship, (relatively) less government intervention, and individualism rules, that UBI is completely dead on arrival no matter its merits/demerits, whatever the facts.

I'd further predict that in Europe, a number of governments will flirt with it in the coming decade, but that the overall results will be completely inconclusive, owing to a mix of irregular implementation, and confounding factors that nobody can tease out. At first, bastardized half-measures will be implemented as small increments to existing welfare programs. Some may go all the way. Those that do will see an influx of immigration. There will be huge fights about whether the influx is from freeloaders looking to cash in, or valued citizens looking to add value free from typical economic constraints.

I feel like these predictions are pretty safe, because it's how most large-scale economic experimentation usually goes. I look forward to arguing about this from relatively speaking the same rhetorical positions 10 years from now.

Articles which try to lay out a speculative economic cost for how much all of this is going to run us aren't terribly interesting, because they must inevitably take a huge raft of assumptions which won't prove to be true in the end, and secondly because the facts won't matter in the end for this particular debate.
> Can't we advocate for better public understanding of, and decentralization of, location services...

Could you clarify what you mean by this? Positioning technologies in general are decentralized. You don't have to rely on the GPS L1 signal, most receivers support GLONASS, BeiDou, and Galileo outside of the box. You don't need to use WiFi positioning, Bluetooth ranging, or cellular positioning. These tools just give you finer granularity for your current position, minimizing Dilution of Precision.
> Germany has spent a lot of effort into diversifying and upgrading their energy system

Evidently the outcome is still nothing to be proud of, especially considering the country's wealth and claim of leadership in environmental policy.

It simply was too early to phase out nuclear power when they (slightly stubbornly) decided to do so.
I agree about the top speed, 25mph on a trail is dangerous for everybody involved.

I want more than 750w of power, not to go faster, but to get up to speed faster after a stop sign/etc. If we could more quickly accelerate up to the limit, we won't be impeding traffic as badly, and it's less of a burden to actually come to a complete stop.
The insurance industry doesn't necessarily want that world of no accidents. No accidents means nothing to insure.
Insurance is all about covering liability. Car manufacturers won't willingly take on all liability after automation. They will still try to shift some onto the consumer.

On the other hand, maybe individual auto insurance will eventually go away as automation takes hold. But automation will not happen overnight. The liability in an accident between a human and automated driver will likely be assigned to the human, meaning human based insurance premiums will rise, forcing more people to automation.
" interview performances has any interesting statistical relevance"

I'm perplexed as to how people don't think it has any relevance at all.

The entirety of every industry is based on 'interview performance' as being one fairly important factor of future success.

Interviews are obviously not perfect predictors, but they are pretty strongly correlated with outcomes.

Someone who does very well in a technical interview is more likely to be a 'good engineer' than someone who fails miserably - though I totally accept that is not always the case.

There's no doubt we could use a little more science to our approach, however.
There's still that 0.01% error that something you ultimately own and are therefore responsible for caused (unless they're used like taxi services.)
See also: legacy admissions.
Of course, these all reveal the location of your phone, not of you. It is possible to do things without a cell phone.
I think the megapolitical perspective on violence in The Sovereign Individual[0] by James Dale Davidson and Lord William Rees-Mogg can be helpful here.

Unions were powerful because they could limit access to labour, which was required for production. Now they are increasingly powerless. Mass manpower was once required to wage war. Now is increasingly less useful in a world of high-tech warfare.

What prevents the powerful from going straight to the source of production and value? I'm not talking about off-shoring manufacturing to China, I'm talking about something more extreme, along the lines of a small cabal of wizards in a tower conjuring spells to extract energy directly from the wind and sun, and materials directly from the ground? The tech is far off, but the direction is clear. Maybe y'all think you're going to be one of those wizards. We'll see.

But what's going to happen to the rest of us? Are we all going to wake up some day as basic-income supported artists, happily chewing on organic granola and self-actualizing (or not) as we please? I think a study of history suggests it's not going to be that easy. Those union rights were hard fought. People died.

What happens when those at the top decide it's not worth keeping 8 billion people around just for kicks, when they can make do with ... 5 billion? 500 million? How many programmers, painters and yoga instructors do we need? On a planet with dwindling resources, tough decisions are going to get made.

So yeah, watch out for those robots. Especially the ones with the lasers on their heads. (That's a joke. But the rest?)

[0] https://www.amazon.com/Sovereign-Individual-Mastering-Transi...
The definition of "ideological" in this circumstance is, "targeted at maintaining the wealth and interest of a particular class at the expense of other classes and the economy as a whole". In this case, yes, opposition to Keynesian measures has been targeted at maintaining the value-capture by "the 1%" (by now even more just rentier asset-owners than those whose capital does real work in fields like technology, really) at the expense of the skilled-professional class (the most common Hacker News user), the semi-skilled middle class, the smallholder class (probably including start-up founders), and the broad working class as a whole.
As a Brit, though it would be nice to think we drive better, I think most of the effect is down to road engineering. Roundabouts have lower fatalities than traffic lights for example.
Right, as a metaphor, I'd almost compare it to grading a novelist or writer's grammatical knowledge of parts of speech and sentence structure rather than their ability to write a book or compelling article.
>We may finally get the promise of the 50's and 60's - less work and more leisure time thanks to technical advancements.

We likely won't, because no one with the power to do so seems to be planning on making that future a reality. Automation exists to allow business owners to reap the benefits of labor without the burden of providing a living to human employees, not to free humans from the necessity of labor.

Barring some global socialist revolution and something like basic income, people made redundant by automation will still need jobs to survive, but automation means there will simply be fewer jobs available. The jobs that are available will be menial, low paying and high risk, because human labor will be practically worthless, as anything of value will already be done by machines.

Unfortunately, history shows that for the vast majority of people, it rarely works out the way you're looking forward to. For some, yes - for the well off and well connected, automation may lead to some sort of Eloi fantasy of intellectual opportunity and luxury. But everyone else is going to be left growing potatoes in the sewers.

Edit: obviously, there will need to be some people with the means to actually buy the goods that the robots will be making, but the efficiency of an automated economy means there needs to be far fewer such people, and they can be distributed globally.
Unpopular opinion: we techies overestimate AI.

> So why is it that, despite each of us having a wealth of experience with people being unapologetically bad at their jobs, we still feel that humans have set the bar so high that the same machines — the ones that can tell you the name of that obscure actor in that even more obscure film with 100 percent accuracy in .01 seconds — would somehow buckle under the challenge of distributing allergy pills?

Because those machines must still ultimately be programmed or trained by flawed humans, and I still have to reboot every device I own on a regular basis to keep it from vomiting all over itself.
Not necessarily. They obviously need that change so it wasn't wasted. However they have to maintain the change themselves if it isn't merged.
And the robot vacuum misses spots and isn't very strong and requires you keep the area clear and never does as good as job as a person does...
Reminded me of a line from the HMMER manual:

"HMMER3 has already been used to model mouse song [Elena Rivas, personal communication]"

-- http://eddylab.org/software/hmmer3/3.1b2/Userguide.pdf (page 10)
Too much to address in a comment, best to look up a music theory primer but I'll attempt to summarize.

Chord = multiple notes played together. There are different ways to arrange the notes within the chord but a common example would be a major chord with consists of the root note, and then a note that is a 3rd above that, and then a 5th above that. For example a C major chord would be C-E-G.

An arpeggio is a rapid succession of notes within a chord. Instead of playing the notes in a chord all at once you cycle through them in some pattern. Typically ascending but as you can see from the tool there are lots of options.

Modes are similar to the scale but I've never learned them well enough to explain it. Altering the mode gives the "scale" a different quality sound. Think about the white and black keys on the piano and how they are not evenly spaced. If you start on C and play all the way to the next C one note at a time it sounds like one scale but if you do the same thing shifting one note higher it is going to sound completely different (not just shifted higher in pitch) it actually has a different quality.
I don't think women are more or less capable than men when it comes to coding. There's no particular aspect of the process which could make it strongly gendered. However, I regularly observe a selection bias, which sometimes makes it seem like women _average_ high.

Women who are mediocre at coding have no particular motivation to go into the profession. A lot of the messaging about the career is how hostile it is to women. If you didn't have a burning passion and a strong aptitude for coding, why would you opt yourself into that? You'd have to have a serious skill and/or passion for the field to want to even start.

For men, though, that hurdle doesn't exist to the same degree. Passionate, skilled developers still follow their professional dreams, but there are also numerous men-folk who ended up in programming simply because it paid well, or because it was a nice indoorsy type job. Without that first cultural hurdle pushing them away from the career, they slouched their way through university and got a mediocre job as a mediocre developer.

There aren't as many professional, mediocre female developers, because only because only those who are really serious and passionate bother to push their way into industry. As we approach 50/50 balance, I'm confident we'll see a much more balanced mediocrity as well. :)
It is a strange example, but it looks correct. What's wrong with it?

Also, you can always open up a PR on https://github.com/clarkgrubb/hyperpolyglot
The insurance industry wants a world of no accidents, as long as the world does not know its accident-free
Yes, a service robot that can cook meals will actually save me more time than an autonomous car.

The car must be the lower hanging fruit in this case.
"extremely frustrating to learn and operate efficiently."

This is pretty much same for everything. Could describe me trying to use a Mac after years on Windows.
I think "complicated at first" is an understatement when it comes to flux/redux - I've been using it for a year and it's still a pain, even though I love what it can do.
I think OP is asking, why spend time writing another guide when there's plenty that suffice, including full books and papers on the topic?
If your job is creative, you have nothing to worry about.
Speaking of which, anyone read Ryan Avent's new book, "The Wealth of Humans" ( http://amzn.to/2i91FE4 ) ?

Is it worthwhile?
Those are bad examples, but real interview questions tend to be "implement from scratch, live and without reference to any materials, these things you've forgotten about because you could take them for granted for such a long time".

Also these days the trendy interview problem is longest common subsequence, which ends up testing "how recently did you review dynamic-programming techniques", not "can you code".
In case anyone's missing context, there have been a few WebVR renderers for React, some built on top of A-frame, some native WebVR. ReactVR is a new, currently preview, release of a Facebook-built VR React renderer.

It was announced at the Oculus Connect dev conf in October 2016.
Microwave dinners?
The error message above was from Rust, not Go, is that what you meant? :P
You're trying to turn a stream protocol into a message based protocol and you're going to experience an impedance mismatch

Definitely. But the reality is that it won't bite you for the part of your audience that's on premium broadband and corporate networks. Conversely, it's going to really really suck for people in crowded apartments on WiFi and bad connections of all kinds. I know this because I'm operating an MMO server on Amazon AWS right now.
looks like countries using more nuclear power have the lower CO emission...
Arpeggio is just a fancy way of saying that you play certain notes in a certain order, usually sequentially.

A mode (like minor or lydian) determines which notes are played. Let's take the notes in C major as an example. If you start with the C and play it up to C', then you get C major. If you play the same notes but starting at D, and up to D', then you get the D Dorian scale. Start with E, you get the E Phrygian scale, start with F, you get the F Lydian scale, etc.. Those scales or modes are all either major or minor (as the difference between major and minor is determined by the interval between first and third note), modes 1,4,5 are major and 2,3,6,7 are minor.

If someone plays a piece in E Phrygian mode, how would you know that it is? By looking at a piano keyboard, you would see that she only plays white keys, which tells you that the tonic/root is C major. Since a piece written in E Phrygian will most likely have progressions or melodies that start/end with an E, you would know that it's not C major, but E Phrygian. If you pay close attention to scores written for mystery movies (or the Simpson's), you will notice that it sounds outlandish or alien. That's because they use the Lydian scale. They might really only use C major notes, but starting a melody at the fourth (F) makes it sound completely different.

A major chord (example C major) is made up of three notes: first is the chord's tonic (C), second is a major third higher than the tonic (E), third is a quint higher than the tonic (G).

A minor chord is similar to a major, but the second note is only a minor third higher than the tonic. Using C minor as an example, the second note is Eb.

The chords that OP progresses over are the modes/scales I described above. If you set the tonic/root to C major, then the 5th mode would be G mixolydian (which happens to be a major mode), or the 6th would be good old A minor. Still, the only notes that are played are those that occur in the C major scale - the chords just use different starting points.
Sorry then my English isn't good enough for such nuances. Maybe replace all instances of "main" and "only" with "significant" or something like that?

I think with some goodwill, you could see the point I was trying to make.
I have built deep learning systems for similar problem domains. I am happy to chat to you about your example. Email me if you get a chance.
> (you don't have to pay this back, and there also is no tuition)

You have to pay it back, if you fail in your courses.
Didn't knew that HookPad thing, thanks!
You've banned this account for calling out your biases, you mean.
It might be some kind of weird older generation disdain for computers. Graduated high school in 2005 in Estonia, some of my language teachers and relatives pretty much looked down on anything computer-related and saw it as only 'playing around with widgets'. Of course, come 2009, that attitude had changed a lot after seeing that the IT-sector was the only one still hiring.
My assumption is that the OP, "geerlingguy", and the post's actual author Jeff Geerling, are one and the same. Not unreasonable, I think. If he wants to post his work on HN and not read the discussion (which is obviously going to be relevant to his work), that's on him.
I wish it was a trade job. What I see in crappy systems is lack of tradesmanship.
Tesla car predicts a car crash 2 vehicles ahead
Since we're not substantiating anything, I'd like to go on record with my own prediction: human labour will become more fashionable. Robots invading every day life will happen, and it will eventually make people appreciate human labour more. entire new industries will be created (or nascent ones expanded) around "the human touch." Hosting something, keeping people company, writing personal letters, drawing, etc., while the robots do our menial tasks.

The more ai approaches humans, the more we will start to notice the differences and value the skill humans have and robots don't.