skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I wrote the comment before the parent made their edit so the logic did match what it was at the time.

Having said that it would've been a very simple extension to make it a recursive algorithm which includes the else case, and arguably would be clearer than the for loop solution.
The logical extension of your statement means the Russians should be invited to hack the DNC or any enemies of Trump forever because in your opinion leaks about debate questions and Pizzerias are so very, very critical to democracy. Perhaps denying the hacks every time they happens because, after all, they serve such a 'noble' purpose.

And I imagine I am not remotely the first one to realize this.

(Edit) My goodness but this is earning a lot of down votes. How very odd.
Well, it's basically duck typed, but without type values you can assign. Doesn't surprise me much.
That's fine, that's not really one of the points to functional programming.
Not only a damn shame, but in fact the reason that it can be claimed to have been a partisan attack and an attempt to sway the election one way or another.

We should have an open government, but it doesn't work properly if only one party's dirty laundry which is aired.
Agreed. Maybe next time around they'll get the RNC. Perhaps then we will be ready for a third party, which is sorely needed IMHO.
अंक ज्योतिष- जन्म तारीख से जानिए कि किस लड़की में क्या है खास, Learn Astrology
The website is really nice. I hope the transition is smooth.
Start emacs-client at startup and you'll only have to deal with the load time on boot. Also, you can do a minimal Spacemacs install. It's not actually all that complex if you look under the hood, and a really nice thing about it is that you only have one dotfile to back up on a git remote or few.
That may be the case, but should we really just take their word without evidence?
Could they even find a single expert who thought it was possible?
I don't see the trolling? How is Star Citizen the most successful crowdfunded game? It's still not released.
Coincidences happen all the time, but targeted ads like those still differ from general audience ads. Just because instead of audio it is spying using metadata and keywords doesn't make seem any less invasive.

> Attributing them to spying is a ticket to a level of paranoia that some people have a very hard time finding their way back from.

I'll state again that I don't believe FB is actually listening in on phone conversations, but to the majority of their users, they may as well be doing just that. It is all just spying, only using different sources.
I just think it's very childlike and immature to blame others for your own mistakes.

The Democrats were unhappy embarrassing information they hid from voters was leaked to voters. They have no one to blame but themselves. If they didn't do the things talked about in the emails, there would be nothing to leak. How many people even viewed the emails, anyways?

I think both: [0] the info in the emails was bad and
[1] not that many people knew about it, or needed the Wikileaks info to not want to vote for Hillary Clinton.

I think she just lost.
Logical errors can introduce bugs in any language. That doesn't mean eliminating a different class of errors isn't worthwhile.
Apologies if it was genuine curiosity, tone doesn't get across on the internet. Interpreted it as another leading question. Point is, the shift to renewables is an incremental process where industries with high/dense energy requirements will likely not be the first applications.
Sad to hear you don't have information from the future. Quoting on here is a hot mess but having poor reading skills is my fault.
Can you explain why Rust "cannot support higher order functions very well?"

I'd also like to hear about "what makes functional programming useful" if you have a minute.
When will it quadruple? Quintuple?
NYTimes (times.com) is down
So to stop crime, war should exist with a criminal's county of origin?

Should we honestly hold the head of state responsible for the actions of its private citizens?
Thanks. Yup. https://www.cyanogenmod.org/blog/a-fork-in-the-road
>Surely something more intelligent than humans would be even less inclined to wage war.

The default mode for a machine would be to not care if people died, just as we don't care about most lower life forms.

> Furthermore, every argument against AI posits that humans are far more important than they really are. How much time of day do you spend thinking about bacteria in the Marianas Trench?

Exactly.

Which is why worrying about ourselves in a world with superintelligence is not wasted effort.

The extreme difference in productive abilities of superintelligence, vs a human population who's labor and intelligence has been devalued into obsolescence, suggests there will be serious unrest.

Serious unrest in a situation where a few have all the options tends to lead to extermination, as is evident every time an ant colony attempts to raid a home for food crumbs.

The AI's might not care whether we live or not, but they won't put up with us causing them harm or blocking their access to resources, even if we are doing it not to hurt them but only to survive.
2nd dependency, Facebook deciding that the app violates their intent, I never thought it. If Facebook in fact does that, I don't think I can do anything about it.

1st dependency, dependency on mobile devices, yeah, I regret starting with the mobile app. Though this is a hybrid app, considering the time that I can spend on this and my pace, I might take nearly a month to make a web app. And now, I am not sure if I should go ahead and release the Android version, or work on the web app and release web app first. Any suggestions?
This post is 13 months old btw.
Pakistani defense minister reads fake news, tweets on nuclear posture
Because there's no real counter evidence, and these are agencies that are tasked with finding this out as their job?

I'll trust the CIA over the FSB/GRU any day of the week.
The initial conditions of neural networks are almost always chosen randomly or pseudo-randomly. Data sets are sometimes, although not always, presented with random sample order or selection.

Either way, the randomness in initial conditions means the solution found is one of many different solutions that could have been found, and depending on the problem, different initial conditions can result in very different solutions even on the same data.
You decompose the complex task into separate other tasks and compose them together the same way that you would in any other paradigm. You wouldn't expect to express a complex task in a single line in an OO program for example.

documents = filter(pdf, folder)

summaries = map(summarise_document, documents)

Is pretty clear despite summarising a document being a complex task.
Free JavaScript Tutorial (worth $195) – Feedback welcome
No, but small messages would be bigger. I just did an example, I encrypted "This is Fran. How are you doing?" (My name isn't Fran.) It was 368 bytes, far larger than the original text of 34 bytes.

I then encrypted the entire message you replied to and it was only 623 bytes. The original was 449 bytes.

Also, you can further obfuscate it by playing with the compression levels and algorithms.

The point being, the difference of 255 bytes is hardly enough to draw attention and hardly enough to hit data caps or affect battery life.
>Hackers released dirt on only one side -- a clear attempt to influence the election, not expose corruption overall.

And unsurprisingly, almost everyone who wants to dismiss any thought of retaliation or of even investigating the matter seems to be either a Republican or Trump supporter.
Virtually every organization i've seen, private or public, that isn't focusing on secret or higher clearance data, doesn't spend more than a weekend on appsec. Even organizations that have security teams dedicated to trying to secure its appsec infrastructure often do it as a black box, or after it is already in production.

Aside from that? It should just be expected that any system that uses a structured query language and can receive user input is vulnerable to injection.
I found that myself while reviewing some Album of The Year lists. I could only listen to half of each album at a time because they generally are so complex and dense before I end up going back to more simpler and easier to listen to music.
We need to first lay the groundwork for a third party option to actually work. This means getting something like ranked-choice voting in place. Otherwise you're left with the winner take all system, and even if you had just 30% of the vote go to one candidate, if that was 2% more than all the other candidates, that one would win. It ends up forcing a two party system, b/c nothing else will allow smaller parties to emerge.

So for anyone who wants third party options, start pushing for their states to allow for ranked-choice voting in state wide elections.
When I was a teen, my older brother loaned me his copy of the book "State of the Art : A Photographic History of the Integrated Circuit" which included a die photo of the 8008. And thus began my love affair with computers.
I'm using the word "compromise" to mean the deliberate introduction of a vulnerability. I have a hard time believing that your friend was detecting those "all the time" because I have a hard time believing that there are a lot of deliberate hardware compromises in the field, and an even harder time believing that these are easily detectable.

I can believe that your friend finds non-deliberately-introduced hardware vulnerabilities all the time, but that is not the same thing.
> If you're running away from bad reviews on dating sites

God, the fact that this is a thing makes me shake my head ...
Is kubernetes widely used at google?
I thought the absence of the domain resulted in that behavior. Checked it out in JSBin [0] and well I'll be damned. Thanks for the explanation.

[0] - http://jsbin.com/mowacanuwa/edit?html
It's not really existential types in the general sense. A function returning `impl SomeTrait` can still only return values of a single type, it's just that the compiler infers that type from the function body and then restricts the caller to accessing that value via the methods in `SomeTrait`.
I'm not sure what's up with all the old re-posts lately. It's pretty lame.
I know what you were saying. I just chimed in with my opinion. It's unexpected to have the reply to your comment not be in opposition to yours. The expectation is that I wanted to undermine your opinion.
Everything is an attempt to sway the election. When I say "Shillary Clinton", that's an attempt to sway the election.
Not sure what you mean by minimization on failure, but there's a 'classifier' and 'on_fail' method that be might interwoven into the capability you're speaking of.
Back in the 80s I took a freshman lab course on this at Caltech. The course notes were available at the campus bookstore, but I don't think they were ever a proper book with an ISBN (and I hope there's something newer, though maybe there's not much new to say about the kind of crude small-scale ICs we got to make in the lab).
Comments from last year when this was posted: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10500488
Yeah, Tk certainly isn't a pleasure to work with in Ruby. Maybe my experience was colored by the fact that it always worked out-of-the-box on my desktop (I guess the libraries were preinstalled).

I've looked at Shoes multiple times for various projects and it always looks terrific, until I remember that installing it involves downloading a 64-bit binary from a website. I've bitten the bullet before and done it, but it's an (ugly) step backwards compared to `gem` and the Qt/Gtk+ bindings that can be installed via `gem`.
And it's likely the static vs dynamic programming debate has been around longer than you coding ;).
Out of idle curiosity, why wait? Seems that is only delaying any improvements people might contribute.
> Congress should not weaken this vital technology because doing so works against the national interest.

One of the most surprising and encouraging statements to come out of Congress in a while.
That doesn't seem very practical to me. There is are deep emotional bonds with physical bases that begin in the womb - a baby learning his mother's voice and smell, the mysterious bonding that happens during the sacred hour after birth, such that months later mothers who went through it are more affectionate towards their children than those that didn't. The closeness of nursing, for which the mother's body is prepared. Sepatating child bearing from child rearing can be done, but it is hard on everyone. Denying people the joy of raising their own children is the sort of thing that people take desperate risks to circumvent.

Other elements of the plan are impractical. Should the child have a loving, mature father in his life? Are we now marrying teenage girls to older men, or arranging marriages between teenagers, or simply using sperm banks? Men want to raise their own children, too.

And this is an expensive proposal for the girls. Pregnancy and caring for an infant makes it hard to put a lot of effort into anything else - you spend most of your time resting, and in an emotionally turbulent state. Putting girls in this state for years on end, right as they are supposed to be ambitiously pursuing training in their chosen vacation is a great way to torpedo their odds of making it in their fields. And just as their children gain independence, you would have them begin helping with their grandchildren! Sounds to me like a recipe for never doing anything professionally.

There is more to life than avoiding minor health risks. The joys of marrying for love in maturity, raising your own children, and fully developing your own interests while you are young and ambitious - these are worth a little statistical health risk.
That just hits "replay" and provides convincing evidence to any new or surviving overlords that the capabilities of the masses must be suppressed more successfully next time.
I disagree that the original commenter is a likely cynic.

I think the most likely belief set here is that it's possible for any poor person to escape poverty through hard work and tenacity. This belief (though arguably incorrect) is supported by his personal experience. Furthermore, because he's proud of his struggle and achievement, the idea of someone 'pitying' or feeling 'guilt' for someone in his former position is detestable because it suggests that they think they're better than him.

In this light, he is not a cynic. Rather, in a sense, he is an extreme optimist and someone who is very proud of where he came from.

This is ALL speculation. My main point is that we should remain open minded in discussion and not make moral judgements on others when they are unsubstantiated (e.g. you "should really" assess your own inner self) i.e. i really think something is fundamentally wrong with you.
I work as an applied mathematician and in my opinion trying to work though the historical context can sometimes hurt. Basically, there are two issues at play. One, everyone has a finite amount of time to learn things, so working through historical methods to add context can take away from gaining time and experience with flat out better, modern methods. Two, it often confuses people as to what methods to use. I work a lot in optimization theory and solvers. In modern optimization theory, you essentially never formulate, use, or look at the Euler-Lagrange equations. However, whenever I work with engineers, they was to use these equations because they learned them in school and think that it's necessary to use them to optimize. It's not. Just discretize everything and use the KKT conditions. Hell, don't discretize everything and use the KKT conditions because they work just fine in Banach spaces. It's not that the E-L equations are wrong, but they're covered for historical context and it cheats people out of the time they need to learn modern methodology. As another example, when people learn iterative linear system solvers, they often start with the Jacobi method or Gauss-Seidel. However, these methods are almost never used because they're absolutely terrible compared to modern Krylov methods. Again, though, I often work with engineers who learned about them in school and want to use them when they should have been learning the differences between things like MINRES and CG and what needs to be done to precondition the system.

For full mastery of a field, sure it helps to know the historical record. Certainly, I think there are little historical tidbits that can keep a class more interesting and put some things in context. However, by in large, I often see people use completely terrible algorithms because they were taught in what I consider a historical manner and they did not have the time, nor perhaps the instruction, to learn more modern methods, which can often be formulated in an independent way without regard to older algorithms. Fields evolve and sometimes we realize there's just flat out better ways of doing things that don't need earlier results.
I don't think they created the language for fun.

I read somewhere that they have a lot (I think it was in the MLOC range) of proprietary/in-house code written in go.
Whoever released the emails did the American public a huge service. They pulled back the curtain and we got to see how the sausage is made. It doesn't matter who they are or why they did it. The end result was important whistle blowing. We should hope that information like this is leaked out as it helps balance the power between the public and corrupt politicians/media in a way nothing else can.
I know someone who used to work there. They don't do much. One of their initial responsibilities was ensuring that funds for HAVA (Help America Vote Act) were dispensed and electronic voting machines were certified following the hanging chad adventure.

As we all know, electronic voting machines aren't so hot and in my personal opinion, the EAC hasn't done much very effectively and has been under fairly regular attack in congress and under (maybe toothless) threat of being shut down.

I don't think they have any actual power over much of anything in elections because that power is distributed to the the state level secretary of state's, so their role is more advisory at best and also is disjoint from the more powerful FEC.
Simulated annealing isn't technically a genetic algorithm (nor is random perturbation). Simulated annealing jiggles things randomly (in this case, probably locations of LUTs), with decreasing amplitude over time. The amplitude of the random perturbations is the "temperature," which decreases until the system has settled into a (hopefully global) optimum. So basically this system will start moving the LUTs around a lot, keeping the most optimal results, and gradually start moving them around less and less until the result doesn't change for a while.

A genetic algorithm, by contrast, encodes the system into a "string" (like a DNA strand), and then swaps pieces of strings between two "organisms," just like genetic mating does. The most optimal descendants are kept, the least are discarded, and the process is repeated. This would be harder to implement for locations, as you would have to encode locations onto a string, and be able to swap pieces of strings while maintaining the functionality of the LUTs.
I actually never have, and I regularly attend. That's a thing, I take it?
>Why? I posit that a good portion of the customer fallout from this functionality has already happened since so many people believe the conspiracy.

The quote is "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." I'm not sure if you are familiar with it but it means that when people vehemently protest something it usually means they did it.

I actually read the link you supplied and I don't think they are currently doing it based on what they said, but they might have done it in the past and stopped once people started noticing. They could be sending it to a third party, which would make their denial true. They might not be doing it at all. Who knows?

>companies can't just record your audio and then lie about recording it.

Depends on what people agreed to in the terms and also what wording they used to deny it. I mean they denied they gave NSA direct access to their servers, but NSA had direct access to their servers.

>Why? It shouldn't take any sophisticated technical analysis at all.

It can be easily obfuscated using compression, encryption and when they sent the data. I touched on this in another post on this thread.

They could gather the data and only apply it as a weight to an already collected data point that isn't related to the microphone. I posted this elsewhere also.

Aren't conspiracy theories fun?
> It's not magic it's just a simple map operation taking the text from the assembly and 1:1 mapping it (in most cases) to opcodes.

Maybe in the Z80, but in modern x86 the instructions are broken down into micro ops and also pipelined (multiple pipelines, even).

> Knowing the opcodes by heart is nice for debugging and decompiling/reverse engineering code. It's fun to do and a really important skill, in my book, for anyone doing computer science in the real world (and if you're paying >10k/semester at college you should know how to do it!).

Why would you need to memorize hex opcodes for CS in the real world? I'll just use objdump or my favorite disassembler (even gdb can print instructions).

> will help you understand how to write a compiler.

Not sure how it will help one understand.
I presume you mean illegal nitrous oxide in the balloons? I would assume those come from diverted medical supply, and the article said medical supply is served first.
Is there an option to be able to mark such posts clearly as reposts?. Great for refreshing the memory and may even useful for new joiners.
> having special syntax for returning errors vs a more generic solution like multiple return values or returning a tuple

Golang supports generic multiple returns (https://gobyexample.com/multiple-return-values). It's just much more commonly used for errors (instead of try catch).