skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I did say it was flawed.

> currently allow prescription of extraordinarily strong methamphetamine to children

As someone adult diagnosed ADHD and taking "extrordinarily strong amphetamine" from my 40s I'd like to point out they do not affect ADHD sufferers in the same way as neuro typicals. They're used at tiny dosages compared to using recreationally. I would not wish children with the condition to have my hugely damaged teen years because of horribly misinformed popular rhetoric about amphetamines. Using meth is the last resort option when other forms haven't worked.

That popular rhetoric meant I spent an additional 10 years before gaining effective treatment. I had to read and interpret actual papers to get past the media bullshit and gain an informed opinion.

I doubt you can even imagine how much I wish I had been taking "extraordinarily strong", ie correctly dosed, amphetamines from my earliest years. I will add that I'm not in favour of use for weight - many other tactics can work there.

Do you use the term "extrordinarily strong" when you mean "correct dosage" or speaking of paracetamol? Paracetamol is the cause of many deaths unlike amphetamines. Now add the liver damage.
Oh, ok, the word macro is heavily overloaded and it seems I misinterpreted the Rust use of macros. But oh boy it costs lots of rep to ask a question.
Dr. Tim Noakes of "Lore of Running" fame agrees. Not everybody is happy about that though http://foodmed.net/2016/05/03/noakes-exposed-real-beef-dieti...
It's really unfortunate semantics that a page fault condition during a transaction doesn't actually raise the fault. Is there a downside I'm not seeing to raising the fault and then aborting the transaction? (That way, retry would succeed.)
Architect for Consistent Change
It's a good essay. The term singularity in the AI context has always bugged me as being ill defined. I think the interesting point will be when intelligent machines can run things and build other intelligent machines such that if all the humans disappeared they would keep going. That doesn't mean there needs to be a sudden increase in a division by zero way or 'sentience' in a way that keeps the philosophers happy, just that the robots can survive, reproduce and evolve without us. It would be a big change in history though.
TSX was broken on Haswell CPUs. I don't know which specific newer microarchitecture fixes TSX. Microcode updates have disabled TSX on Haswell for a long time.
I understand your point. But it doesn't mean we have to live with a hero complex / white man's burden. To consciously step away from earning more, and creating businesses doesn't mean driving oneself to mediocrity if it is to trade off for something they would rather do, appreciate more, and value more. It can be called selfish or hedonistic to do so. We only have one life, I'm not going to live it doing what others want.
Some people have to rationalize their stuck-in-the-1950's, environmentally-destructive, post-truth lifestyles with gusto somehow. How else to explain expanded fossil fuel consumption/exploitation, anthropogenic methane output (ie fossil fuel industry, flooded rice cultivation, animal agriculture/CAFOs), palm oil plantation rainforest burning, microplastic pollution/gyre garbage patches and other similar ecological-destructive behaviors? Oh but, let's bitch about not wasting as much water because a few cheap, low-flow toilets were purchased without evaluating better alternatives because it's all conservation's fault. (Sarcasm.) Yeah.

http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/research/energy/downloads/methaneuk/...
You don't think they might be a bit concerned a loose cannon like Trump might be a little more curious than normal candidates what sorts of interesting things they get up to, and where they spend their significant budgets?

> but I need something

That's how a lot of people feel about this whole "Russians rigged the election" thing, we'd like some evidence a little more substantial than "trust us", or at least we'd like to hear those words from someone we can trust, although no names come to mind. I can't think of very many public figures that I would trust these days.
I agree.

The South China Morning Post (scmp.com) is also worth taking a look at it, especially now that it's free. It's not quite the same caliber as the FT and it has less coverage of American news, but it's even further removed from Anglo-American media circles so offers an interestingly detached perspective while still speaking a familiar political and social language.

I just recently renewed my FT subscription, though, after I let it lapse. I had dropped it favor of a SCMP subscription a couple of years ago. The FT price increases were relentless. But I never ended up reading the SCMP much and didn't even realize it had become free until recently. FT lowered their rates slightly, and given recent events I decided to start reading it again.

I'm hesitant to call the FT neutral, though. Their journalistic culture is closer than most to the traditional Anglo-American laissez-faire descriptivist business culture (borderline amoral) that most Anglophone outlets moved far away from long ago. (In all fairness, they moved away from it partly because that culture was and still is often times dangerously indistinguishable from complicity wrt slavery, apartheid, authoritarianism, etc.) It's honest but still elitist. Perhaps being elitist is what has allowed it to stay above the fray better than other outlets like the Wall Street Journal or the Economist.

The FT is also de facto internationalist given it's readership and industry focus, which is why so many commenters in their forums seem to presume they're anti-Brexit. (Also, when did their forums get so popular? Returning after a couple of years, it feels like the newspaper equivalent of Eternal September.)

I guess those things have made them effectively largely neutral on a wide range of topics of interest, especially to American readers. But it also means the FT doesn't do serious investigate reporting, or to analyze issues very deeply, outside of industry pieces. I like to think of the FT as a reflection of the consensus opinion (or lack of opinion, as the case may be) among the international elite. And that reflection doesn't make a lot of sense unless you bring a lot of pre-existing knowledge to the table, including an already decent awareness of historic and current events, and the intellectual culture of that elite. (Which is definitely not the same as the culture of the academic elite, although there's significant overlap.)

To understand what I mean about the FT being elitist and internationalist, people unfamiliar with the FT should know that it's common for high-level politicians like Secretaries of State, Foreign Secretaries, and even Prime Ministers and Presidents; and for powerful businessmen with multinational interests to publish commentaries through the FT knowing that they're quickly reaching an international audience with many in similarly powerful positions as themselves. In order to remain such a neutral outlet the FT is purposefully often very restrained in how they approach various topics. As I insinuated above, occasionally that restraint comes across more as stilted analysis, an awkward omission, or even deafening silence.
> There're are no shortage of obnoxious comments from beginning Rust users here and on Reddit. If you can't see them, it might be because you're aligned with that point of view.

Can you give me an example of a comment in this thread that you find to be from a pretentious beginner? Alternatively, if you're calling the author of this article a beginner, I can assure you that he isn't.
How we went about creating Input UI Elements for our Chatbot Platform
> But my impression is that [Trump vs. Clinton] is way more powerful than any other bias right now.

I think this is correct, and largely why the Russia meddling has become more an article of faith than a highly concerning possibility.
Lots of companies are trying to build a self-driving car. I've yet to hear of anyone working on a car smart enough to say "fuck off, I don't feel like driving today." And as you point out, I don't know why anyone would.
I have no idea so couldn't say. My point was not to compare them but to say FP is big in complicated software writing be it any FP language.
Thanks for your explanation. So what this really does is enable one to train code using machine learning techniques such as gradient descent, traversing a code-space instead of traversing a space of numbers?
Okay you gotta immerse yourself as much as possible.

From experience, you gotta learn that language is like a filter through which ones' mind/heart/intentions are shaped. Then, you master getting into the pre-language state of mind that has no language, and from there you train yourself to see the world with a different organization of concepts.

First, learn the 200 most common words in the language.
Do whatever it takes to learn all the verb conjugations.
Spend countless hours listening to real humans talk in conversation and repeat exactly as well as you can over the tracks whilst listening (like singing along to a song) so you can master the ups and downs of tonation in pronunciation.

Top 2 tips:
One) 15 minutes every day is worth so much more than 150 minutes in one day every 10 days. Meaning: frequency is key, and quality over quantity.

Two) to truly become "fluent," that is, to make the leap from "this is something I can use" to "re-experiencing life through the frame of a German person / Japanese person / Swedish person / whatever" you must spend time in a place culturally saturated in the language.

That said, you can spend 2-3 years of your life immersing yourself in radio, news, television, movies, and learning mnemonic methods (whacky stories and images that help you retain meanings) and make incredible progress.
I don't necessarily disagree, but a guilty charge shouldn't be based on the "most plausible" explanation.
> You have a theory that the average person will wisely assume the responsibility to vet the health effects of what they consume, but empirical reality disagrees with your theory. Right now people are injuring themselves with products at the margin of regulation.

I know this is an incredibly callous opinion but isn't this natural selection at work?

People even go further and knowingly partake of substances known to be harmful (cigarettes). We don't stop them from that, why should we stop them from consuming medication that hasn't yet been deemed safe?

Educating and providing support for those that need it I agree with but if people freely and knowingly choose to act in a self destructive manner with a sound mind, I'm not convinced it benefits society or themselves to forcibly preserve their life.
I'm a complete idiot when it comes to what drug is going to have what effect on me. That's why I consult an expert: a doctor.
Billions of dollars plus whatever power comes from picking the president and presumably having a potential deepthroat if they don't behave. And remember, the intelligence community is not unified. Even though Obama has been a huge ally of the intelligence community, not all branches got the same deal.
what happens when the Chinese government puts a high priority on getting into aerospace and tries to replicate their own 787s or A-350s

I am late to this discussion, but James Fallows wrote China Airborn, a book about precisely this topic! The answer is complicated—if it weren't, he'd not bother writing a whole book about it—but the short answer is that so far China's not succeeded.

China does lots of stuff well and deserves credit for it but is not the indomitable powerhouse sometimes suggested in the media (e.g. http://www.marketplace.org/2015/12/10/world/why-cant-china-m..., although I don't know if this piece or others like it are for real).
I was under the impression that STM, being an opportunistic (success biased) concurrency primitive, was faster than explicit locking. Isn't it more performant? I remember I saw in a talk given where in that benchmark STM was as fast as no locking at all !
Personal anecdotes are considerably more valuable to the individual that generalized truths. Every human body is unique and while trends and generalizations matter, they do not matter as much as empirical observed facts. Much more so in the context of personal health.
Given the wide disparity in income on the high side, anything that increases equality would necessarily bring down average wages. When it comes to globalization the west must understand its part of the 1%.
I actually have some experience using this via angular-dragula (https://github.com/bevacqua/angular-dragula) - it mostly works for us for Angular 1, but when we started doing more complex interactions in a prototype, it showed its warts quickly with model bugs. This library ends up doing basic things pretty nicely, but being able to do more complex interactions like stacking multiple selected items becomes impossible to do right.

In our current app my team is working on (Angular 2), I ended up homebrewing selection and drag & drop modules, which I hopefully will take the time to open source at some point when things slow down. It was an interesting exercise, with some work for getting the UX done right (some aspects such as what should happen when the user drags a little on the mouse while holding it down - just dragging as soon as the mousedown event occurs is no good because it turns out users typically will move the mouse a little when pressing the mousedown for a click). It made me appreciate any site that implements non-trivial drag and drop, it is not an easy interaction to get right.
I know this is too late to get noticed much, but here's the truth:

This is a race-to-the-bottom. Everyone in this whole area has to compete with whoever is the scummiest exploiter unless they really go out of their way to sell their service with privacy and ethics as the top feature. So, some ethical niche services can exist, but meanwhile, everyone else is screwed, and network effects make any niche thing stay pretty irrelevant.

The only way to avoid races-to-the-bottom in a competitive market is with real enforceable regulation that outlaws the worst shit and requires truly effective disclosures otherwise. That's not easy, sometimes it's impossible, and it often has major negative side-effects and problems, but whether or not we determine that regulation is worth it or not, we know that races-to-the-bottom are a real thing, so we can give some leeway that each company isn't actively trying to be malicious — they are just competing in a race-to-the-bottom situation (and we can reject the dogmatic free-market people who deny that this and all sorts of other natural market-failures exist).
so you can use webpack to build react applications in browser? Structor should look into that and integrate with their GUI
you could ask the maker, https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=pizzeys
I'm aware of the issue with non-terminating transactions, though I wasn't aware of the role played by page faults -- thanks for adding that detail.

Looking back over the readme, I can see how the loops used in the examples are a little misleading.

This is mostly a documentation issue: the core XACT code doesn't use infinite retry loops, and actually does not retry transactions at all. As with std::atomic, the goal is to provide a basic primitive and leave retry / backoff / etc. up to the user. This is especially important with lock-based fallbacks, as I can't pick one perfect lock to fit everyone's workload.

I ended up dropping retries because I ran into so many never-ending transactions in my early experiments with TSX. That was also my motivation for limiting the transactions to as few locations as possible.

I'm just now starting to reexamine this and add some configurable retry logic back in -- e.g. the retry policy here is used in some test code: https://github.com/scivey/xact/blob/master/include/xact/atom...

As to the difficulty of protecting any memory touched in a transaction under a locking scheme: that kind of problem is exactly why XACT is focused on CAS-like operations on relatively limited sets of memory addresses.

Can you elaborate on the global lock? What's the motivation there?
Imaginary friends don't have legitimate interests.
"The administration, fellow lawmakers, and general public must understand the potentially catastrophic consequences of a digital cyber conflict escalating into a kinetic, conventional shooting war."

The international community needs to come to a consensus on what kinds of digital attacks constitute war rather than intelligence gathering operations. There are well understood limits to what the CIA and GRU can do without provoking too much outrage if caught.

Note that Obama's announced retaliation focused on new sanctions on Russia's intelligence agencies and expelling a few diplomats from the country. "Reports have indicated that White House officials are also trying to avoid escalating the conflict." The issue with a widespread digital war would be the entire Internet as collateral damage for a few days. We are indeed wise to not escalate matters.
I think the problem rests more on the fact that as it stands Facebook profits regardless as to whether or not you use it. The same collection happens across numerous non-Facebook sites and apps, from data other people reveal about you, from apps and companies that are bought up by Facebook, and so on. The idea of "if you don't like it just don't use Facebook" becomes very difficult to implement when modern existence feeds into Facebook it seems.

It's the involuntary participation in facebook's arrangement that people are bothered by.
I've been in the Facebook office and it's true that they have information posted above the urinals. Didn't really read it though.
That's not going to work. Did the beginning single quote get stripped out?
Digi-key, Mouser should have retails office location in Silicon Valley where anyone can order on-line and pickup in person when notified the order is ready via email/txt.
Lots of things are criminalized that shouldn't be, I think CCC crowd holds that position pretty firmly as well.
Seriously!

Here is technical analysis of one of the malware used.
http://researchcenter.paloaltonetworks.com/2015/07/unit-42-t...

Why does everyone thinks that only Russians can write such a malware, that too in python!

Also, does it dawns on anyone that anyone can actually take this malware up and reverse engineer it and repurpose it. All it takes is changing one JSON blob embedded in the code to point to your own servers for CNC, use your own AES IV/Key.

Also, I find it funny that they use embedded time stamps and resource locales as a proof of anything. Didn't anyone ever use Resource Hacker or 'strings' command? Is it really this hard to scrub or falsify timestamps in a DLL/EXE?

The most damning proof would have been some SSL certificate reused in a known compromised server for CnC. I heard rumors around it but nowhere in the analysis this was highlighted or discussed.
The mafia defense? Really?
You're choosing your own doctor, right?

Do you just blindly take whatever the doctor prescribes to you without doing your own research? How do you know your doctor is an expert? I'm pretty sure my doctor is not an expert in lots of things pertaining to medicine. He's not studying all the new research. That doesn't mean I can't have a conversation with him, but it's healthy to be skeptical of doctors too...that's why we get second opinions.

I don't have a huge problem with the FDA, but I'd rather have a number of choices of where to get information, and at the end of the day make my own choice on what to consume.

Also if people are so stupid like the OP suggested why not ban a whole plethora of foods like Twinkies, potato chips, soda, etc..?
Using SystemJS as JavaScript Loader
Please come back next year and tell us something about each of the ~260 papers you've read.

Until then, I'll tell you about my New Year's Resolution: To Cure Cancer, to bring World Piece, and to win the Nobel Prize.
> Do you really believe the automotive industry would be better off is all the Auto Manufacturers did away with all Models and simply made 1 car.

Nope, nobody believes that. Which is why any argument attacking that sort of thinking is nothing more than straw-man arguing.

What people believe is that some situations exist where fragmentation of effort produces far inferior results to coordinated efforts. The different factors that determine this are numerous and complex. Suffice to say, this sort of situation where fragmentation is indeed bad is common but far from universal in software.

The comments in this thread show some people insisting that this type of issue exists (and they are right) and some other people insisting on some dogma that fragmentation and competition are always fine (or something that sounds like that) and are arguing with straw men who think that coordination is always good and fragmentation is always bad.
Not an option. They have a shadow profile about you anyway.

Aside from that this is as silly as "If you don't like organized crime don't buy stuff from the mafia and there's no problem."
Oxygentango in Los Angeles. Www.oxygentqngo.com

Can't recommend them enough, they know what they're doing.
If you like the post, I recommend you to read Start Small, Stay Small: A Developer's Guide to Launching a Startup[1] by Rob Walling.

> "Start Small, Stay Small also focuses on the single most important element of a startup that most developers avoid: marketing. There are many great resources for learning how to write code, organize source control, or connect to a database. This book does not cover the technical aspects developers already know or can learn elsewhere. It focuses on finding your idea, testing it before you build, and getting it into the hands of your customers."

[1]: https://www.amazon.com/Start-Small-Stay-Developers-Launching...
Apt and/or ports follow you to every OS kernel I can think of (Linux, MacOS, Windows, *BSD, the Solarises), though the packaging doesn't always (for instance, the OpenBSD guys have a high bar, but that's a feature).

My theory is that each language community thinks it will save them time to have one package manager to rule them all instead of just packaging everything up for 4-5 different targets.

The bad thing about this is that it transfers the burden of dealing with yet another package manager to the (hopefully) 10's or 100's of thousands of developers that consume the libraries, so now we've wasted developer centuries reading docs and learning the new package manager.

Next, the whole platform agnostic thing falls apart the second someone tries to write a GUI or interface with low-level OS APIs (like async I/O), and the package manager ends up growing a bunch of OS-specific warts/bugs so you end up losing on both ends.

Finally, most package manager developers don't seem to realize they need to handle dependencies and anti-dependencies (which leads you to NP-Complete land fast), or that they're building mission-critical infrastructure that needs to have bullet proof security. This gets back to that "reinvent dpkg poorly" comment I made above.

In my own work I do my best to minimize dependencies. When that doesn't work out, I just pick a target LTS release of an OS, and either use that on bare metal or in a VM.

Also, I wait for languages to be baked enough to have reasonable OS-level package manager support. (I'm typing this on a devuan box, so maybe I'm an outlier.)
Also, middle-/upper-oriented people are more likely peer-pressured to placing in the "best" kindergartens, whereas lower-oriented people may skip it (much like skipping parental-school involvement). And, I suspect both nature and nurture aspects are self-amplifying: smarter/more competitive kids may make more money and attempt to seek similar mates to have improved offspring and try really hard to inculcate successful attitudes. Plus, having more money helps reinforce getting into selective kindergartens and making more childhood friends of future powerful people, leading to better social access to higher quality mates (better genes), more money and hopefully better lifestyle-choices.