skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
You're missing the point. We know that angels are real because we observe their effects on the world around us. The important thing for us to do as scientists is to figure out how angels operate on everything, simultaneously, without leaving any evidence. A thought experiment that will give us unprecedented insight into their function would be to imagine how small an angel could physically get while maintaining all of the properties they are known to have. It would be very, very small, so the best unit to calculate it with might be the maximum density of angels of theorized types, qualities, and distributions within some arbitrarily small area. It'll be the greatest discovery since aether, and has the potential to yield methods for us to wield the power of angels, which would completely disrupt health care, immersive gaming, social multimedia and national defense.

Just kidding. Theory-theory is all about discovering the definition of words. It rests entirely on the axiom that when people talk about their motivations and the motivations of other people, they're talking about real objects and real processes. After we assume we're already right and have always been right, all that's left is to locate and quantify "jealousy," and invent ways to create, destroy, and control it. "Jealousy," whatever we may determine that is, is axiomatic before being defined.

I ambiguously like the article, just in that it reminds the reader that there's no clear way to detach any physical mind from anything else in the world without making it into a soul. The important thing about you is not that there's introspective rationalizations running on a verbalized loop in your head (and in any reaction requiring speed, slightly later than the action they pretend to explain), but why you can hear the ones running in your head so much louder than you can hear the ones running in someone else's head. It's a proximity problem, not a problem of "consciousness" or "mind." Why am I so much closer to me than I am to you? I have to rely on sounds and visual indications to act upon, and to get feedback from, your nervous system. Why am I in my head and not yours? If I am not this introspective loop; if I were in your head, wouldn't I be in your introspection? If I have no agency, and my behavior and the content of my introspection are an epiphenomenon of the relationship of my nervous system and environment, rather then something that I initiate from wherever I connect with the physical world - am I unitary? Could there be countless me's in my own head observing (living without acting) my life from my perspective?

It's far safer to define consciousness or mind as the thing that separates humans from meat, then spend a lot of time studying humans and meat and comparing the two. It's also useful in that you can declare any behavior that you don't like in humans a problem with their meat, or declare some people more meat than human. You'll never be wrong.
As a physicist my first approach would be using Radon transform [1]. Should be tweaked a little, as overlapping threads are not additive in color (for black threads it's multiplicative though).

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radon_transform
$10/month? I prefer $0.30 per month at http://nearlyfreespeech.net, but Forge does look cool for when I need those features. Thanks.
My 'fix the Internet' gripe is to finally stop assuming that 1500 bytes is a large MTU. It's not 1990 anymore. We can send much larger packets if only PMTUD worked. But NAT, but 1280 bytes in IPv6 land, but ...
"Either complete rubbish or a work of consummate genius, nothing in between!"

It's very kind of you, but this is clearly the former.

Can some try to have built a simple 'online calculator' - you know, with buttons, square-roots, logs. etc.

Anybody?

No?

A practical demo?
If you think that the development of a space based missile system will only be developed with "defense" in mind, I have a surplus of bridges that I'd like to unload at a reasonable price.
DataScience Digest – Issue #4
Advances in offensive capabilities are spurred by advanced in defensive capabilities, and vice versa (going back to the time when the 'offensive' weapons were rocks and sticks, and the 'defensive' options were woven plant material).

The response to this sort of system is not "Oh, well, guess we can pack up the nukes now", it's "We need to invest in a nuclear delivery system that is capable of defeating this system", and the cycle starts all over again.
Sure statically typed functional languages are enjoying a lot of success right now, but there are still plenty of LISPs in the playing field like Clojure that can't be discounted as parlor tricks. You might disagree with them philosophically, but it doesn't change the fact they're being used in production.

What bothers me more about JS as a functional language is the lack of tail call optimization. While it's in the ES6 spec, last I heard there was some question of whether it would actually be implemented for web browsers.
Space is too large, distances are too great. There is no suitable laser right now. Besides that, if you are garanteed to neutralize your enemy's arsenal, you force him to attack first while he can avoid his own total destruction.
I was wondering what end game of the "election hacking" narrative was, seems to be as pedestrian as a kickback to Lockheed et al. At least this most recent "intelligence" from our friends at the CIA will hopefully wont end up with 110 thousand dead like Iraq.
The legislative branch can not create laws that change the definition of what rights are constitutionally protected or interpreted through the normal legislative process. The SCOTUS in fact can strike down laws that are passed but are deemed in violation of the US constitution. There is a process to change the constitution, but it is hard by design.
I think that's a basic misunderstanding of mathematics and physics that is often used as a justification for functional programming. Formulas in physics often reference implicit state such as the time - which is exactly what imperative programming languages do.

I'm agreeing with you about the difference of perspective.
When data disagrees with you
"The bomber will always get through". Against a big attack, all you can hope for is thinning out the incoming.

Against a small ICBM attack (from N. Korea, Pakistan, etc.) a missile defense could be effective. The US already has a few ground-based anti-ballistic missiles based at Vandenberg AFB, and some Navy ships have ABM capability.

It's getting too easy to build a nuclear weapon. The technology is over 70 years old, after all.
Wow, I didn't expect so many replies! Thank you very much! I will read (and re-read) all of them.
Scheme is a lisp, so this is a rather confusing statement.

In fact as lisp dialects go, Scheme is typically more functional than Common Lisp.
Computer Systems - A Programmer's Perspective already does this and does it very well, though not free.

The course's site: http://csapp.cs.cmu.edu

You can purchase the book on Amazon.
Jean-Paul Sartre, and Le Duc Tho declined the Nobel, Obama could as well if he did not believe in the purpose of the peace prize.

I have 7 words for anyone who wishes to down vote: Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya, Syria
The US military superiority over the rest of the world is exactly what allows the kind of globalized world you are talking about.
> Not like we don't have enough guns pointed at the world

We've gotten rid of most of the nuke stockpile, at least.

> why not spend an exorbitant amount of money to point an even bigger one

Huh? This is an intercept system, not a weapon.
“The Art of Defensive Programming” Is Out
Unless the pits themseleves are stored outside of the country, there's not more than like a week of engineering work and a quick wet job preventing Germany from having nukes.

Forward stationed nuclear weapons obviously increases the risk of nuclear warfare by pure logistical effects, and the risk of weapons going outside the control of the owners, as the coup in Turkey remind us.
Tutorial, C – App Part 2: Using files and the common dialogs – codingeek
TL;DR: no can do in software, despite all the effort. Use a hammer.
The idea of Smallcheck is to start with minimal values. If we're going to shrink big values to small ones, why not just start with small values in the first place. Smallcheck tests the small values exhaustively rather than randomly.

To be fair though, QuickCheck is not completely random. It has a "size" parameter that starts small and grows, thus allowing small values to be tested first.
I like the assumption you make on the transmission factor. One can implement it fairly easily by replacing:

imgMasked = np.subtract(imgMasked, lineMask)

By the following lines:

lineMask = np.subtract(np.ones((height, width)), lineMask)
imgMasked = np.multiply(imgMasked, lineMask)

lineWeight is now equal to the k you propose.
"Dang, they've developed an 'antivirus' program. Pack it up boys, viruses are obsolete now!"
And yet none of these issues seemed to plague CR in the past, when they've reviewed every single MBP release of the last several years (in addition to hundreds of other laptops)...
More complex configurations are possible as well, of course:

https://github.com/Erisia/Madoka/blob/master/configuration.n...
The Rise of Science Fiction from Pulp Mags to Cyberpunk
In the situation with 3 questions he can answer: 1) Yes. 2) Yes. 3) No.

Or he can answer: "Let's do XYZ." and ignore two other points. That would hint that one email should cover one topic to keep things simple.
Please explain how this has any meaningful advantage over the current system of silos and submarines. The ability to launch a nuclear missile from a space platform would be much more expensive, limited in size, vulnerable to attack, and invite massive complaints about there being such a missile parked in space.

The threat of using it as a really sucky attack platform is not why there are objections to missile defense.
I have not, it resides mere feet away on my bookshelf and I shall read it this Winter :-)
Check out drupal. It offers a lot of flexibility compared to any other cms that I've seen. And ~all modules are open-source and meant to work together, building blocks. Though it's been some years since I've used it, it was at the time.
Somewhere on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean.
Good Dobbs, who hasn't? You can't turn on the TV without seeing K'Xthkapatykak sitting in some comfortably-furnished studio begging/shaming me to call in with my credit card number to set up a recurring donation. And then there are its minions forever banging on my door (often with a sweet- but miserable-looking tadpole in tow) seeking to waste five minutes of my time reading the Tgprglna tablets with them and of course soliciting me to attend, credit card in hand, their next coven. They've got time travel, intergalactic hyperloops, immortality, FRB franchises across the universe, monthly credit-flow in the 8 digits (at least), and who does the IRS think should be tax-exempt, them or me?
> Yet so long as we are developing software within a social context, where the finished artefact has users other than its designers, we can scarcely escape the conclusion that what we are doing is engineering.

This conclusion is far from inexorable.

There are kinds of making other than engineering. Carpentry is not engineering. Cooking is not engineering. Gardening is not engineering. Sewing is not engineering.

All of these things involve making artefacts for users other than their designers, within a social context no less. All of them require specialist knowledge and tools, involve the application of judgment learned from years of experience, and give rise to communities of practice which codify their agreed knowledge in books. They even have formal certifications.

Before you can declare that making software is (or can be) engineering, you have to be able to explain why those things aren't.

My tentative theory is that engineering has rigorous ways to check whether a design will work before it is manufactured, and even before it is drawn in detail. A civil engineer can use known formulae to check if a bridge span of given dimensions is even possible before sitting down to design it. A chemical engineer can use known formula to check if a reaction is plausible. A mechanical engineer might need to draw a detailed design, but can then check it rigorously with finite element methods. When we make software, in practice, we have to construct the software and test the artefact, hoping that our tests are adequate. We can't do meaningful checks on the design itself, let alone on any sketch which prefigures the design.
I've been experimenting with application-specific IDEs too, where the compute power needed is >> my laptop. When I'm using it I edit locally and rsync to the cloud machine where it runs and shows me the results in a browser.

I've had on my TODO list to integrate codemirror so other people can do everything remotely, but I don't think I'd use it myself. In principle it can be a bit faster to update, but a function key in Atom to rsync is pretty quick.

Do other people have positive/negative experiences with local/remote editing?
The swearing adds nothing, absolutely nothing, and for me it massively detracts from any message that might be there.

Others may disagree, but I don't care. I'm flagging this. There's a time and place for language like this, and this is neither.
Be really awesome at whatever you specialty is (provided it's not something that has no business value at all) - and be able to prove it (through open source, books/talks, demoscene, robotics projects - whatever is appropriate in your field). That should easily enough put you in the $250k+ bracket.

Granted, I think that level of expertise may be achievable only by the gited, while the rest of us ordinary folks may have to accept our ordinariness and the meh salary and positions that come with it. Or, alternatively, go to an industry like finance, which pays a lot for just domain knowledge without neccessarily having to be an exceptional programmer.
Towards Design for Self-healing [pdf]
I've been using Tornado for about a year now, and I'm incredibly happy with it. Here is some of the background and reasons for that:

* I had been using Django for some 5-6 years, until I finally realised that I'm not happy with many of its architectural decisions -- global singleton settings, the way views are organized, the way it's organised around the ORM and everything. It provides a lot of tools, but if you don't need some of them them tough luck, you still get to lug them around and it's not helping you find any workarounds.

* I've learned to prefer frameworks that don't get in your way and allow you to choose any individual components for individual needs. I've worked with Flask and Bottle, which are great but sometimes go too far in the opposite direction, focusing so much on simplicity that more complex tasks require jumping through a different set of loops (I'm looking at you, Blueprints).

* Tornado's Web framework is successfully avoiding both types of traps, and it gives you the ability to develop simple apps -- say, a REST API -- quite easily and naturally, at the same time giving you the room to grow your creation naturally as needed. I've briefly tried Falcon, which follows a similar philosophy, and is IMO a great alternative.

* Tornado, however, is not just a Web framework -- it actually provides an amazing set of tools which can be easily in your app or even without any relation to a Web app. And the best part of the toolset is its asynchronous networking capabilities, which provided things like coroutines long before they existed in Python -- and now you can combine the two in a same app.

* Last but not least, Tornado provides an amazing, production-ready, non-blocking HTTP server. Most of the other frameworks make a point of not using their built-in servers in production, instead advising you to plug your app into a WSGI server like uWSGI or gunicorn; you can do that with Tornado too, but if you don't your app can process requests asynchronously, preventing slower requests from blocking faster ones.
Sometimes it's worthwhile to explain how things are by first talking about how things aren't.
OK, so "Haskell > Scheme", or some such. Any specifics beyond "ADTs", which I assume means Abstract Data Types - interfaces/polymorphism.

If IDEs ever get good enough to do near complete type inference, including reading through partial function application, and perhaps an "extract/move function" refactoring that converts closures to parameters, most of the class/type bondage and discipline may look a bit like a waste in retrospect.

Having worked in both static and dynamic type systems since the 80s, I've developed a bit of a "cringe" mechanism at the repetitive code that usually comes out of "strongly" typed languages. "This time it's different", but it never seems to be :-(
I am 36 and I feel I've been overly passive throughout my career. I only "activate" in emergency mode and during the last 15 months (a stable job) I started reflecting and understanding that I only ever tried hard only NOT to sink, and not a centimeter beyond that.

Your experience is something I fear will share in just several years if I don't get off my ass and invest in my future.

To be fair, I had a plethora of pretty valid reasons which I'll not list here. I grew to realize they gradually devolved in mere excuses however in my mind. They were valid for 5-6 years (between 19 and 25, let's say, and even that's a lot of time). Beyond those I just kind of loved the slack they were giving me.

TL;DR: I am stressed, tired and realizing that if I don't start getting much more things done, I'll face a VERY GRIM future.
Just exposing people to a few basic patterns from functional programming will 1) encourage them to learn a real functional programming and 2) help them write better code.

Learning Haskell or Clojure or something is a big task, especially if you're doing it just because you're curious what all this functional programming is about. Everyone understand JavaScript, so being exposed to functional programming there is not a big deal.

And I love writing JavaScript with a bit of a functional lean to it. I think it makes it much easier to reason about the code. Of course it's not purely functional, but it's still better than if I wrote it the way many people do.
It would have higher speeds and thus hard to intercept. This is going to lead to a new space weapons race, which is bad. US has no need for it as they have plenty of other good weapons anyway.
I think the Adam Curtis interview, though the obvious choice, is a really good listen even if you don't think you fit the typical listener's mold: https://soundcloud.com/chapo-trap-house/episode-65-no-future...

The Ross Douthat episodes are great, and the "Chapo Traphouse Book Club" at its finest. But nothing can top the Ralph Douthat Twitter account: https://twitter.com/ralphdouthat?lang=en
> How is Mesos "needy"

Sorry, that was the damn autocorrect — I typed "beefy". As in large and powerful.

I'm not surprised if Mesos has solutions for what you describe. When I said "I don't know", I meant it literally! :-)

That said, Kubernetes provides nice built-ins, but doesn't force you to use them. You can use Vault for secrets management, for example.
Until a human resort casino development rolls up and dynamites that rock in the Himalayas.

The concern isn't little green men in flying saucers; it's if, for example, someone makes an exponentially replicating terraforming system. It wouldn't take very long to swamp the galaxy.
I highly recommend Bootstrap and Github Pages. S3 also works but is a little more complex to setup in my opinion. Bootstrap gives you abstractions in the form of CSS classes to help you quickly build a website. The other helpful beginner feature is the vast array of Bootstrap themes, templates, and addons. The ubiquity of Bootstrap has spawned a thriving ecosystem of resources and tutorials even if modern web developers may sneer at it.
Half of the IDE is tips called inspections. It's like having a machine pair program with you. This will get you unstuck faster and teach you good habits.
When I say "like those who..." I mean that all these were real philosophers, after Descartes that is not a rule anymore.

I would say that the real rule today is: everyone who publishes in philosophy magazines or has a chair in some philosophy department on some university is NOT a philosopher, all the others are.

As you can see from that Wikipedia article, the theme is totally ignored by philosophers. Wikipedia makes a huge effort to make a full article for it, but only achieves a small text full of sparse references to unrelated topics (self-knowledge, which is clearly not the same thing as we are talking about here; and various superficial silly comments from post-Descartes people).
A guide to analyst relations for startups
No they don't —unless their author let it. My blog won't shut down even if my provider does. I'll just move it somewhere else.

Of course, if you're posting on blogpost or such, it is not your blog —it's Alphabet's. If it were your personal blog, you wouldn't have put this "signal inappropriate content" button, would you?
Not intending to detract from the elegant and progressive thrust of the ideas here, when we consider software failure in context of distribution and higher level systems, we note that both CAP & impossibility results in that domain are applicable here and at best we can hope for episodic health checks and healing of distributed software systems. Specifically only at AP consensus points or CP system downtime for off-band repairs.
Good idea. I get that it was a demonstration of the application of spec but for a real implementation of self-healing code, in my opinion, there needs to be a way to verify that the problem the matched functions are supposed to be solving is the same instead of relying on some sort of statistical confidence via IO sampling.
Not to pile on but it is not $10. It is $15 / Month for individuals and $30 / Month for teams.

and that is on top of however much it costs you to run a vps on Digital Ocean or Linode or Amazon.

https://forge.laravel.com/ https://forge.laravel.com/features

It is worth taking a look if you don't enjoy setting up machines.
This headline really overstates it. Anywhere outside of a major metropolitan center you are gonna be hard pressed to deal with day to day things like getting groceries without a car. The nearest grocery store to my house is about 5 miles. I can bike it but that really limits how much stuff I can get.

Similarly if you're a family with pets, particularly big dogs like mine, I can't take them anywhere without a car.

There is no public transportation of any kind that comes to my neighborhood.

So while yes, more and more people in cities may be abandoning cars because they have gotten more and more expensive over the last decade, there is no near future where America as a whole is able to live day to day without a car.
My experience has taught me that if static typing improves your code, it's probably hiding deeper flaws.

I won't deny there are some clever things one can do to improve code with sophisticated typing. However, the typical usage is to alleviate the mistakes of bad names and poor design. When I find type errors at runtime, I look for a way to refactor that avoids confusion without needing to add type checking. I don't always succeed, but when I do the code is more elegant.
I don't know about Vim, but Emacs is not strictly terminal-based. In fact, it's GUI mode has way more features! It has modes for pretty much any programming language under the sun, with the functionality that pretty much rivals IDEs. It can also be used to edit files remotely over SSH so you don't even need to have it installed everywhere.
Freelancers: Do This Less
There is another far more terrible weapons system nobody is talking in public about. We should assume this 'space based missile' is a distraction from something so monstrous the public would lose its mind if its existence was confirmed.
Eatsa: Quinoa-based fast food