skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
One real issue with the nightly/stable split is that it hasn't been entirely clear when things will actually be making it into stable. I understand that software development is full of uncertainties and sometimes you just don't know how long an implementation will take until you actually build it. But right now, to someone not involved in developing Rust itself, it's hard to get an idea of what the nightly-only features are, where they are in the stabilization process, and when they might be expected to appear in stable. For a concrete example, I only found out that custom derive will be out in 1.15 because I happened to read Hacker News. And there doesn't seem to be any index of RFCs or where they are in the process at all, or at least not anywhere that I could easily find.
In the core team's defense, they're eyeballs deep in this stuff all day every day, so they have a pretty good idea about what is where and how far along things are. But us users who only glance at what's in each new release and only upgrade every 6 months would really like to know whether to bother to bother installing nightly for the shiny new feature or just wait for the next release that will have it and be actually stable.
I'm American. I check email once a day, max. Sometimes I'll just skip it all together. If stuff starts going sideways, I'll hear about it anyway. Most in my org sit in meetings half-listening while replying to emails or looking at their laptop/phone. I stopped carrying my laptop to meetings and only use pen/paper. Really helps with both my clarity of situation being discussed, and being more sensitive to noticing when I'm not adding value.

I encourage my team to limit email to once a day, as well as to decline meeting invites without a clear agenda or that don't state why they're needed.
You'd be surprised by how many don't want to.
Manufacturing cream + powdered sugar + mixer on high = much yum!

Its always interesting to learn that the 'one thing' everyone uses is vulnerable (like the expoxy that goes into IC packages[1]). Given its pretty easy to make Nitrous Oxide out of Ammonium Nitrate[2] why not make it on site?

[1] From 1993 - https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1309&dat=19930819&id=...

[2] http://chemistry.about.com/od/makechemicalsyourself/ss/How-T...
Missing the point: the essay.
تور کیش از رشت
(Advance 6+1 Tricks) Airtel Free Internet Trick 350% Working
Me. Feel free to ask me anything.
Not Phoenix specifically, but here's a growing list of companies that use Elixir.

https://github.com/doomspork/elixir-companies/
Us as well, I'll answer what I can!
Their job is to find it out who did this, informing the US population is not part of their job and quite often is counter productive. Don't trust any of them, your interests are more similar to a Russian civilian than any of the agencies.
Reading XML ain't secure against malicious data either.
Why was BigInt and FixNum unified into Integer? Don't they already both subclass Integer?

It seems they just made it harder to write interfaces that take advantage of machine precision integers. They didn't remove either arbitrary precision integers or machine precision integers, they just made them harder to distinguish. Why is this an improvement?
Lineage OS – Cyanogenmod continuation
Because they're claiming that they have the right to extract information that (allegedly, not even certainly) exists inside the defendant's head, i.e. to force a testimony.

There's a very obvious difference between saying "We're allowed to look inside your documents and records" and "We're allowed to force you to give up any fact we claim you know on pain of contempt charges". Even worse is the fact that people might not actually remember encryption keys (it's happened to me several times), which would mean you could be kept in jail indefinitely for forgetting the password to some trivial volume. I know I've used Truecrypt to keep copies of business receipts and subsequently forgotten the password years later; imagine if the government had erroneously accused me of having illegal materials in that encrypted volume.
If you avoid division by 0, wheels revert back to normal fractions [0]. This should mean that you can use them as a drop in replacement for a rational number datatype. Doing so should allow you to defer checking for division by zero; possible moving the check outside of a tight loop. Granted, this should also be doable as an optimization of normal rational arithmetic.

The only use cases I can think of for wheels amount to them being a principled way of adding NaN to the number system. Of course, if history is anything to go by, a hundred years from now someone may look back on this comment the same way we look back on people calling sqrt(i) "imaginary".

[0] At least under the explicit construction presented.
To answer your question, from the Go FAQ [0]:

Why is len a function and not a method?

We debated this issue but decided implementing len and friends as functions was
fine in practice and didn't complicate questions about the interface (in the Go
type sense) of basic types.

Also worth noting is that debate happened in 2009 or earlier, which is 7 years ago. After that, Go 1 has been released with its promise/guarantee of compatibility [1], so changing the language is not possible. It is what is, and significant language changes can only happen in Go 2. Until then, many, many people and companies are using Go 1 with huge success and happiness and have built great things with it. In practice, I find it works really well.

[0] https://golang.org/doc/faq#methods_on_basics

[1] https://golang.org/doc/go1compat
Julian Assange Confirms Internet Restored at Ecuadorian Embassy
I don't like the tagline, btw: "Easy to use, community-driven, open-source Enterprise software for businesses."

Yeah, absolutely. That's something that I've been meaning to change for a while, but it hasn't been a big priority since we've been heads down focused on product stuff lately. And this new product represents a little bit of a pivot, so once this is all ready, we'll revamp the messaging as well.
We do at TalkJS (https://talkjs.com). It's a pluggable user-to-user messaging service, and the concurrency that Phoenix and notably Elixir offer have been really helpful in keeping our infrastructure simple.
The first reply to my comment I did treat charitably (even though I thought it was a pointless derail), disagreeing but giving reasons for my point of view. In response to this, the other poster just restated his original objection rather than making any effort of his own, either to be charitable or to expand on his original argument.

I agree that it's important to give someone the benefit of the doubt, but only a fool keeps doing it if there's no reciprocation. The presumption of good faith is after all the mechanism that trolls seek to exploit.
I agree, so much saved with such little effort.

What's even more remarkable is how he was able to come to the conclusion that it was a false alarm in such a short amount of time. It takes me longer to pick a cereal for breakfast!
I'm not sure why you were downvoted here -- the mind-body problem isn't nearly as trivial as this article makes it sound.
There's a difference between a filing cabinet and your brain.

> why not your phone as well

They can do whatever they want to my phone with a warrant. What they can't do is force me against my will to testify as to the contents of the phone. Be very careful not to conflate those two activities.
You haven't thought much about the risk of superintelligence if you think it is a typical risk. Is that compared to poorly designed children's toys or nuclear weapons?

I would go as far as to say, "humanity" as it is defined today, is doomed, it is just a matter of time.

The only question is: Will doom play out with a dramatic disaster or as a peaceful handoff/conversion from biologically natural humans to self-designed intelligence.

Either way, natural human beings will not remain dominant in a world where self-interested agents grow smarter in technologic instead of geologic timescales.
How do you enforce this:

> On a case-by-case basis, with proper court process, requiring an individual to provide a passcode or thumbprint to unlock a device could assist law enforcement in obtaining critical evidence without undermining the security or privacy of the broader population.

I can write a piece of messaging software which writes one of the following two in a log, without exception: (1) hash of /dev/urandom (2) message history with passphrase encryption

If the government comes to me and asks for my passphrase and I say "I don't have one", how can they prove that I have a passphrase and am in contempt of any lawful order? The only actual way to enforce this is to make it illegal to write software which does (1).

My point is: the reason the quoted parts in the top-level post are ugly is because search warrants should already be sufficient, unless you want to crack down on the ability of citizens to do the above.
Why I read books on history
That's pretty disappointing honestly. So which container management platform is actually used at scale?
You can use traits instead. I know it's different, but it probably solves your problem.
Most of the people buying the 2015 models now consider it the superior product. The fact that it's also cheaper is just a bonus.
That really smart person, Trump, will make it work. If not, he get help from Putin and make it work.
Maybe those organizations should be regulated differently due to the tremendous amount of influence they have over our society.
Ehh, while most would agree, I have met biologists who deny evolution. Membership to a club of belief is a powerful source of cognitive dissonance.
Govt can always demand your private key;
On The Media: http://www.wnyc.org/shows/otm
We Had A Good Life

Two brothers who tell us stories about current events, interesting history and their lives.

http://www.wehadagoodlife.com/

A good intro to their style is The Thickening video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdvpMYwlKn8
I don't understand the couple other posters who are dismissing this article. it is exactly what it claims to be, a practical introduction to functional programming.
I'd also like to echo poster vvanders sentiments about Rust and how it compliments the functional style. I've experienced the same feelings, although I did it while working in Swift.
And for those out there asking "why is FP better", I submit that it allows for fewer ways for me to shoot myself in the foot.
I think that's a perfect example of why a functional implementation is superior here. The index is being mutated in two different spots (i++ and i += 2) and it's easy to miss the fact that the i += 2 isn't just a running sum but actually impacting the future traversal.

In Haskell you'd do something like:

skip [] = []
skip ("a":xs) = skip (drop 2 xs)
skip (x:xs) = x : (skip xs)

Which makes it super clear that you're skipping over items in the list. The parsing then simply becomes:

map parseLine (skip lines)

Which is at least an order of magnitude clearer and doesn't mix a bunch of unrelated logic together.

Even worse, the original author says the goal of his code is to:

> The goal is to skip the line after a line starting with the letter "a".

But he actually skips two lines after an "a". The above Haskell code makes it clear that we're skipping two lines with "drop 2".
3D printing with yarn and silicone
> But as for immersing yourself in past guilt...I find that this happens to me, and my rationality is that I deserve the guilt from my failures and misdeeds. That if I "live in the now" I am doing a disservice to those I may have wronged (even though they may have completely forgotten whatever it was by now and moved on).

> ...

> But it feels so selfish when I apply this mentality to my transgressions upon others.

I can relate.

I think that a certain amount of guilt is good, but it's not at all obvious how much is optimal. The guilt in itself doesn't help the ones hurt. I suspect strongly it's a lot less than people frequently immersing them-self in guilt employs though. Just accepting that it's a very hard optimization problem in a very uncertain domain is probably a good idea.

The appropriate amount of guilt is just enough to change future behavior. That is assuming the remorsed misdeed actually was our fault and not due due to circumstances out of our control.

The less clear the situation around the misdeed is, the less guilt is helpful. If it's hard to pinpoint what we actually could've done differently it's hard to induce change.

The best apology is changed behavior, etc.

Repeated micro-guilt is probably better than longer sessions of self-loating. (assoc.: spaced repetition) (Again - assuming high certainty about the nature of the misdeed - meaning also an initial analysis of the situation have been done)

Sometimes it's best to simply talk to the one we suspect we hurt :) Not always easy though.

In general it's frustrating how ineffective rationalizing such things is - personally I haven't found a better approach though.

A final assoc: one-line quotes like "Live in the now" is highly (lossy) compressed advises.
I don't think the article makes the problem sound trivial. The title does, because it's the usual baitiness. We replaced it with a primary phrase from the text itself.
Show HN: Compakt, Chrome extension for message compression on Twitch chat
'Star Citizen' switches to Amazon's game engine
Describe metadata analysis without giant dragnet.

The beef in the metadata analysis comes with mass surveillance.
Getting warrant to see where suspect sends emails is not in question. There is little analysis needed there.
Open source ones? Or did you mean internally within Google?

Kubernetes is growing in popularity. Among older systems, Mesos (with Marathon, usually) seems to be quite popular.
>We had the same exact arguments used against us under communism, ...

What nonsense. None of the credible people suggesting that superintelligence has risk are spouting generic arguments that apply to communism or any previous situation.

The question is not IF humanity will be replaced but WHEN and HOW.

Clearly, in a world with superintelligence growing at a technological pace, instead of evolutionary pace, natural humanity will not remain dominant for long.

So it makes enormous sense to worry about:

* Whether that transition will be catastrophic or peaceful.

* Whether it happens suddenly in 50 years or in a managed form over the next century.

* Whether the transition includes everyone, a few people, or none of us.
You've been posting a ton of unsubstantive comments to Hacker News. Please stop doing that. Here, you've been uncivil as well, which is much worse. We ban accounts that do these things, so please improve the quality of your comments.

We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13252106 and marked it off-topic.
Merry Grav-Mass
What is the "civil liberties" you are talking about. It is already well established that the government has a right to (under certain conditions) search through your documents and belongings.

You could also be talking about a civil liberty to be able to run what software you want. However, the hypothetical laws that are covered by this report include ones that only restrict what major companies do; and we already accept limitations on what companies can do. (For example, no one's civil liberties were violated when Microsoft was forbidden from preferentially bundling IE with Windows).

You could also be talking about the civil liberties associated with dragnet surveillance. However, those violations are not a result of the use technology; but rather the surveillance program. They should be regarded in the same fashion as an old fashioned surveillance program.

The only civil liberty that I can make a convincing argument for being directly relevant is the right to bear arms. [0] Interestingly, in my experience, support for encryption is anti-correlated with support for gun rights (myself included).

[0] Is cryptography still classified as a munition?
> If you think the government should be able to gain access to your house, filing cabinet, etc- with a warrant, why not your phone as well?

They can gain physical access to the phone, just like they can gain physical access to a safe; they can also compel the production of physical keys or security tokens, if any. They can't compel you to provide information from your mind, such as the passphrase to a phone.
Ask HN: What are the greatest tips to stay calm?
I get angry and lose temper when people (employees, students, coworker) ask me to do something that does not require my help and does not follow my advice. I would like to know your strategies to be cool and friendly all the time
A foreign government breaking into a computer system and releasing documents wholesale is not whistleblowing.
came here to downvote this. by the last para I stuck around to upvote!
the report you've cited references the same Washington Post story I've noted above, which is the source of all this misinformation

>"A secret CIA assessment...the Washington Post reported, citing officials briefed on the matter."

If it's a secret assessment, how did WaPo get a hold of it? How does the CIA not disclose this information to US Congress, who has oversight over the CIA, when they're asked to testify re: this new information?

Please see the first link in my previous post.

Nearly every single one of these "Russia did it!" stories cites the Washington Post article[1]. Interestingly, the article itself says:

>a senior U.S. official said there were minor disagreements among intelligence officials about the agency’s assessment, in part because some questions remain unanswered.

and

>For example, intelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin “directing” the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to WikiLeaks, a second senior U.S. official said.

As mentioned elsewhere, there's is zero coverage on the contents of the emails leaked & the blatent corruption that should make people mad. CNN even said it was illegal for anyone other than CNN to look at the Clinton Email leaks.

Why is the media so afraid?

The CIA and mainstream news is clearly lying to American people to trigger war.

They seem to have no control over PEOTUS, who is shutting down Military contracts via Twitter -- how can the military industrial complex survive without endless war!?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama...
The issue appears to have resolved itself with a fresh install. I could not replicate the behavior in the nightly, and when I reinstalled the main release it did not manifest again either. Sorry to not be a better help, I'm trying to wrap my head around it...
I think the proper answer here is that Python 2.x should be treated as legacy. Python 3.x defaults to generators for maps/filters by default.
If you think someone is trolling and breaking the site guidelines, you're welcome to alert us to that. You're not welcome to respond by breaking the site guidelines yourself.

Everybody always feels that the other person started it and/or did it worse, so that argument can justify anything.
I see where you're coming from, but a few observations:

- The judicial branch is wading through this question now (sometimes allowing compulsion, often not); it's not a question for Congress to answer, as appealing as it might be to them to help us redefine our Constitutional rights.

- We're in the analogy danger zone, but would you say that your phone is more like a safe or more like an extension of your mind? What do you think your answer will be 10 years from now? 20 years from now?

- Dragnet vs. compelled disclosure is a false dichotomy. The NSA and friends will continue their collection of data + metadata at scale, regardless of the outcome here.
Thanks a lot for the links. So am I correct in understanding that the reason this isn't a default Tor capability is the setup around the domains used to do the fronting (looks like meek uses mostly CDNs?)
Show HN: Neural Painter – Paint artistic patterns using random neural network
Nice :)

But your site displays â€” instead of —.

Merry Christmas!
Chips for Deep learning continue to leapfrog in capabilities and efficiency
I was imagining more at the level of the standard library or the pry library.

Or do you recommend this monkeypatch in practice?
- No TV, no games, no aimless internet browsing

Without these three, you're bound to spend your time usefully. Not necessarily, but relationships / sports / learning as well.
The article title definitely colored my perception, thanks for replacing it.

That being said, there are parts of this article that
come across as trivializing the issue:

> Mental life for an anthropologist or sociologist is profoundly social. Your thoughts, feelings, memories, attention, what you experience in this subjective world is part of mind.

Neither monists nor dualists would dispute this, but the article makes it sound like it's a sole necessary result of the dualist view. I guess I'm not being a charitable reader, but this does a disservice to both sides (and to Siegel, whose actual claim is much more nuanced than the article makes it out to be).
At least you'll have an excuse :)
Recognise that the determinant of whether or not you will be calm is internal to you, and is unassailable by anything in the outside world.
Um, no.

Hawking, Musk, et. al. are highly successful people with objectively valuable contributions who are known to be about to think deeply and solve problems that others have not.

They are as far from cranks as anyone could possibly be.

Anyone can find non-argument related reasons to suggest anyone else is crazy or a cultist, because no human is completely sane.

What someone cannot do (credibly), is claim that real experts are non-expert crazies, over appearances while completely ignoring their earned credentials.
Seems like a non-issue. Whipping cream by hand takes less than ten minutes and it's quite good. It's not going to be as fluffy and light as the stuff with nitrous oxide, but for topping I think that's not the point.
Channels in Go turned out to be less useful than expected. The original pitch was "share by communicating, not by sharing". But in practice, large amounts of data tend not to be sent over channels. It's common to send references over channels instead, which implies sharing across goroutine boundaries. Go doesn't have strict single ownership, like Rust, so you can send something to another goroutine without the sender losing access. This creates a potential race condition. (There are checkers for detecting this at run time, but it's not a compile time error, as it is in Rust). Channels are thus equivalent to a queue module coupled to a lightweight thread system.

Go is garbage-collected, with a good concurrent garbage collector, so all this is memory safe. Mostly. Maps (Go's dictionary type) aren't concurrency-safe for performance reasons, and there's an known exploit involving slice descriptors.
Major Harold Hering and the forbidden question that cost him his career
As the sibling comment pointed out, the most unlikely aspects of the situation are that your friend posted on the topic and that the post coincided in time with your conversation. I'd say the fact that Facebook decided to show it to you at that point is the least unlikely part of the story.
Exponent: fantastic analysis and discussion of tech, society, trends, strategy. One of my favorites.

http://exponent.fm