skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It's likely that we agree on real-world practice: one should allow vehicles to safely pass regardless of the legality of their speed, and harassing someone who is driving in the wrong lane is to be avoided. I drive as politely as I can, both for my own safety and that of others.

That said, I am philosophically troubled by a law that legally requires me to take a positive action that benefits those who choose to ignore the law. I'm not sure what the parallel would be to your "yield to the right" example --- perhaps requiring that the driver with the legal right of way check first that no one has chosen to ignore the yield sign?

I would be interested in better parallel examples where positive action is mandated to improve public safety in the event that another party is breaking the law. My guess is that degree of comfort with similar laws show a strong urban/rural split, based on the degree to which "leave the policing to the police" is feasible.

(note that I'm not questioning the general principal of "slow traffic keep right", only the corner case where all traffic is already moving at the legal speed limit)
Natural selection is causing a decline in human education genes
The Origins of the Superrich: The Billionaire Characteristics Database (2016) [pdf]
FBI, 5 other agencies probe possible covert Kremlin aid to Trump
A particularly hairy case is where you use variables as features which are themselves generated through other potentially-discriminatory processes. For example, including a "has committed a felony" feature seems like a no-brainer for a hiring or lending application, but now any racial or other discrimination present in the criminal justice system has now "infected" your hiring process, so that the outcomes of your hiring process are now racially biased even though your process itself was not.
I wonder if it's micro-movements, or if people who are already standing are more likely to walk around more often.
What difference does that make? The war on drugs is just as much a failure in isolated nations. They can manufacture locally easy enough.
Forrest Mims, Radio Shack, and the Notebooks That Launched a Thousand Careers
> I'd like to see a version of Rust with garbage collection. The language itself is good.

Why? What is the added value?
Rust doesn't have escape analysis like Go (or Java, etc.), it is all done at compile time

Go makes the stack/heap decision at compile time as well. It is far closer to C++ than Java. To your other point, cgo calls indeed have a high overhead in an absolute sense, and ideally you do fatter, more meaningful calls.

I am not advocating for Go, it just seems that these discussions often pigeonhole technologies, and a common one is the strange belief that Go is just another Java/C#, and Rust is the next low level language.
> There are physiotypes that will simply resist obesity on the worst of diets.

Apologies for misunderstanding, but are you saying here that some individuals are able to eat as much as, say, a 300 lb obese male, yet somehow weigh-in at a rather fit (for example) 160 lb due to _genetic composition_?
Thanks, I was confusing myself there. Obviously you would really want to use SubstrateVM in development to get that sweet fast startup - I'm just blind to the startup time angle since I use the zeus gem to keep my application always already started up and fork off new processes as needed.

I was considering the case of building a single executable, including the entire ruby application and its dependencies, via SubstrateVM. This could make deployment a lot simpler.
It's cash-neutral for us. Suppose a new hire gets 10,000 options with a strike price of $1.00. (These are not real numbers.) They will pay $10,000 up front to early-exercise the options. We give them a bonus of $10,000. Net cash impact to us: zero. (As I noted, there is some cash impact to the new hire, as they will have to report $10,000 income and pay taxes on it.)

We've lost the opportunity to earn a little money from the new hire by selling them stock at a nonzero price. But that's not an opportunity we want.

As we grow into higher valuations, the tax impact may become an issue. We might have to start grossing up the bonus. Also, if someone leaves before they're fully vested, all this has to be unwound and I'm not certain of the tax implications there. We haven't worried much about that because at this stage no one is leaving. :)
All well-behaved squares fit right into the same square hole.

The not-so-well-behaved usually aren't square, and usually don't fit in anywhere.
To be fair there's no proof of a crime thus far: just a large pile of circumstantial evidence (creepy instagram pics and comments, many awkwardly worded emails about pizza and hot dogs and kids in pools being entertainment, and many other things like that) that people are choosing to interpret in a specific way. Everybody is obviously innocent before being proven guilty, but many people who look at so many of the weird aspects of this believe that there's something going on here: at the very least they could be speaking in code about something.

Interesting to me that the media wants to jump up and down and is so hysterical and adamant about saying "it's debunked!" when it doesn't look like there's any interest by the police to even look into this. Supposedly, somebody filed a FOIA request to get info on the DC police's investigation into these allegations and despite previously saying that their investigation hasn't yielded any proof of a crime, it turns out that they never even investigated it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omlQHWrgmd4

But the media swears up and down that it's already been debunked. I don't get that.
The decision to brake was always made by the engineer.
What's even worse is how easy it is to keep moving the goal post.

"Oh, you have 50% female workforce? Well, what about women of color? Not enough of them = you're discriminating!"
I don't wish to imply that getting a job is the only meaningful thing a teen could be doing. However there are plenty of teens who would love to get paid jobs as say, programmers. They are denied because of old laws intended to prevent poor families forcing kids into mines or factories for twelve hours a day. Yet most of what teens are coerced into doing at present is 'make work'. It is this fact which explains the lack of motivation, not idleness or some kind of pathology requiring 'intervention'.
It's also sort of how any kind of organized labor is possible
Interesting. Any telltale signs? I'm assuming it's not the difference between native English speaker and ESL, but specific words or grammar patterns? Can you tell from my comment history whether I was educated in the US?
Should Men Always Pay on the First Date? 500 Men and Women in NYC Were Surveyed
> As for the financial costs--you're paying someone else to build and manage your infrastructure, so yes, it will cost more than buying raw infra. Again, this is a tradeoff: is this more valuable to your product/users to answer pages or build features? Depending on where you are in your product lifecycle, YMMV

First, 2-3 orders of magnitude more expensive is quite a steep price to pay for the featureset of Firebase.

Second, it’s only a good idea to use Firebase if you don’t plan on ever migrating away – because that will be hell.

And third, Firebase is a massive engineering effort, and I’m surprised that stuff actually works, considering how much work it is to try and replicate the features I need myself.

On the other hand, somehow I feel like Firebase is just an example of the hell we live in, one of the greatest development tools, and all of it is secret, most not even patented, never will be open or free, and just being used to force developers into a closed ecosystem of Google’s Cloud.

It’d be a lot nicer place if projects like this would be open, so people could use it on their own systems (because I certainly won’t trust a company running systems in a country ruled by Trump).
It's not that easy to accept binaries compared to scripts I can open and see what they do.
Now there’s a good story.
>The criticism that reddit gets is so naive

It's perfectly valid to criticize something for sucking even if there isn't a better alternative.
MIT launches Play Labs to help AR, VR, and AI startups get off the ground
Edward – A Turing-Complete Language for Deep Probabilistic Programming
At least curl is not using symbols for leetspeak.
Check out https://github.com/pkg/errors
Meritocracy is great. Just when everyone has equal access to education.
I realize I could have attempted to exercise sooner, but that isn't quite the point. The part that really bugs me is the fact that time is undervalued (or non-valued). If I have a high value asset, my time, that I contribute towards the success of a company, it's value goes severely underappreciated by management and the board. That's the problem. If person X puts in money, and person Y puts in time, the time is regarded as a non-asset. Now, you might be tempted to say, "but you got paid", and I did. But I put in far more time than would be required somewhere else. That is, I put in extra time, a non-fungible unrecoverable asset, into the company and had nothing to show for it. Asking for more payment (for the options) is the equivalent of asking me for more time, which I had given plenty of already.
America has this attitude in general, and it drives me insane. "Our problems are different so we can't use the proven (healthcare|internet|public-transportation|drug-abuse|poverty|etc) solutions that other countries use!"

Sure, some things are different, and it's important to understand why solutions work in one country, and how they may not work in others. But the US has a large problem with thinking that our problems are unique when they aren't.
> "I know it works in every other country, but it can't possibly work in the US"

The 'murican bigness' argument.
The embassy where he is now is a dead end. I can imagine he has enough of being locked up there.

Still, if his goal is to free Manning it's hardly surprising he waits until she's actually freed.
The syntax is nice, pattern matching, traits and generics are nice. The added value is a language with a better type system than Go in Go's space (web development). I don't want manual memory management or to have to care about regions, lifetimes or borrowing.
Let me think about this, while driving my car to work,
listening to the radio, drinking some coffee, and with my beloved wife next to me.
I'm still unconvinced Docker's choice of using Go is the primary culprit for their problems. If Docker had started bottom up they would have been forced to design tighter contracts between the components from the beginning (regardless of language).

Ultimately it's the architectural decision to couple everything that allowed them to be loosey-goosey with internal-only interfaces. Why bother specifying them thoroughly if you can update all components simultaneously and have no dependencies outside of your control? I'm sure a tighter language would have helped in the small, but their problems are categorically big problems that I believe transcend smaller and more localized failings.

My experience using Consul for the Vault backend has been pretty good. Yes, you have to manually go in and clean up old nodes after a restart, but that isn't too bad. So far (knock on wood) we haven't run into a situation where a replacement node has refused to join the cluster or the cluster has out-right failed.

That said, I do wish they would put the effort to properly integrate with Etcd. We've gone through the motions of setting up and managing a highly-available Etcd cluster for quite some time now and are more confident running it than Consul. I'd rather standardize on Etcd myself, but I'm not inclined to swim upstream. :)
Doesn't matter if your idea sucks.
It also depends on your definition of exercise, and sex as you are hinting doesn't necessarily count :)
But at some level, doesn't that just mean reality is biased, and since we don't live in utopia, trying to model one in the small is a sandcastle?
I'm going to be that guy. Sorry.

Are you sure it's a new idea? Have you really searched the 2million+ apps out there to be sure? Truly new and original ideas are rare, most things you can do on a mobile have been tried at some point in the last 10 years. Check again, and learn from what others have done.

Have you validated the idea? I don't mean asked your mates if they like it. I mean have you got someone to give you money as a pre-order?

Do you know exactly who your market is and how you'll reach them? Putting something on the app store is not enough, it'll vanish without trace. You need a marketing channel outside the app store that can get to your target market and tell them about the app.

Have you tested that marketing channel? Personally I would do this before writing any code. If the marketing channel doesn't work then you need to find that out first and find one that does work. Don't worry about advertising vapourware, if people really want your app they'll wait a bit (see Kickstarter for evidence).

Unless, of course, this is a side project that is never intended to make serious money. If so, then pick whatever technology and platform you want to learn (I'd second React Native as a tech to learn). Market sizes don't matter if you've got no customers and no channel.
> it has to send it from it's own address @ it's own domain, to avoid SPF failure.

To avoid SPF failure it uses its own domain in the MAIL FROM envelope address. There are very few lists that change the From header, I can't name a single one although they probably do exist.

> The SMTP server calculates the DKIM on each message as it is sent.

Like I said, even if they did, that only works if they were also changing the From header to their own domain. Otherwise, even though there is a valid DKIM signature there is no alignment with the From header so it is ignored when evaluating DMARC. DKIM does not use the MAIL FROM address.

> Again, mail servers adding links is completely irrelevant to the DKIM signing process.

I send a mail to a mailing list, LKML is a good example. My SMTP server signs the message with my DKIM private key and relays it to the LKML SMTP server. LKML receives it, appends a footer and relays it to all subscribers, with my name and email address in the From header but using its own address in the MAIL FROM address. The footer breaks the DKIM signature because when my message was signed that footer wasn't there. LKML does not re-sign the outgoing messages, it relays the DKIM signature provided in the original message. This is standard of many, possibly even most, mailing lists.
I'm referring to insulin resistance. Chronic high levels of insulin will result in cells not responding to the signal from insulin to store blood sugar (because they've already saturated their glucose storage capacity), which will result in the pancreas releasing more insulin to compensate. The more insulin resistant you become, the more your pancreas ramps up its insulin levels (to diminishing returns, unfortunately), until it reaches the point where your pancreas can't make enough insulin to control blood sugar. (Type 2 diabetes). Your body can't/won't burn fat when insulin levels are high, and the insulin resistance results in insulin never dropping an appropriate amount, which results in fat not being burned despite the meal not being particularly egregious.
That was the tipping point for me. How readily, without reason / evidence / proof, that it was debunked by the media. I am not a person who jumps to conclusions. I draw conclusions based on facts. But when they can say that it is 'debunked' without facts, while actual material exists that points to, at the very least, shady material surrounding it...then I have not choice but to question things. I come to the HN community because anything note worthy is highly scrutinized here. I appreciate that about HN and it is the only reason I even bring the topic to the table here.
Well I do hope analogous tools appear in Rust and show design soundness of Rust. For now I remain sceptic that Rust is perfect language for large, complex, high-perf highly concurrent software.

Rust Roadmap says this much for production use:

"Production use matters for the obvious reason: it grows the set of stakeholders with potential to invest in the language and ecosystem. To deliver on that potential, Rust needs to be part of the backbone of some major products.

Production use measures our design success; it's the ultimate reality check. Rust takes a unique stance on a number of tradeoffs, which we believe to position it well for writing fast and reliable software. The real test of those beliefs is people using Rust to build large, production systems, on which they're betting time and money.

The kind of production use matters. For Rust to truly be a success, there should be clear-cut reasons people are employing it rather than another language. Rust needs to provide crisp, standout benefits to the organizations using it."

https://github.com/aturon/rfcs/blob/roadmap-2017/text/0000-r...
Yeah, that's the calculation that bums me out too. It's one of the reasons I am somewhat loathe to ever put in too much "extra" time anymore. I enjoy being a part of a startup for more than just the lottery ticket aspect, I enjoy creating things from scratch, etc. But the days of burning the candle at midnight are gone.
Just glancing at that code: the use of unsafe is more or less only there to avoid initialization & bounds checking. Basically it's an optimization, and I don't think there's anything there that couldn't be accomplished in safe Rust.

I have an idea as to why the author approached it this way: typically Rust wouldn't let you take out a mutable borrow to a vector while you're iterating over it. If Rust did allow that and you modified the collection then the iterator might reference freed memory!

A common way around this is to just use a typical `for <range>` loop and index into the array directly to limit the scope of the mutable borrow to _a single iteration of the loop_ and not _the lifetime of the iterator._ However indexing in Rust incurs a speed penalty for bounds checking, and the unsafe code here lets you skip those checks.

Really all the unsafe code is doing is saying: "I promise to initialize `rowcol` entries, and I won't try to access anything outside `rowcol`. Please don't burn cycles worrying about it Friend Compiler."

It looks to me as though this could've been written as a vector initialized with all zeroes (which possibly isn't even that expensive, since modern OSes heavily optimize the case of giving you a zeroed page.) Then in the hot loop the author could've just used iterators to avoid the bounds check. Using an iterator for that should be fine in this instance since you're immutably iterating over one matrix, and the only mutation happening is in the new transposed matrix.

That all being said: transposing the matrix in-place would run into exactly that scenario. now you could still do it in safe rust, you would only need to add the unsafe code if you wanted to turn off the bounds checking for maximal performance.
I switched to a standup desk 5 years ago. I got a dog 3 years ago. I don't sit anymore and she forces me to take her for two walks almost everyday.

I don't exactly have more energy and I don't feel like I'm going to live forever, but I have noticed I am aging slightly slower than my colleagues who are forced to sit down in their offices for over 12 hours a day.
This implementation doesn't support the select statement.
I'm from an island nation, albeit a bigger one (Australia). The isolation does limit supply, cocaine is expensive here and I've been told availability is sketchy.

Meth is cheap and plentiful though, any redneck/bogan can setup a lab. Weed is practically given away.
> things that should be dirt-simple in Rust, like string concatenation, are unreasonably difficult

This is how hard adding String objects is in Rust:

a + b

A more full example shows only small complexity, really, and I include it only for completeness and fairness:

fn main() {
let a = String::from("Hello,");
let b = " world.";

let c = a + b; // this is the only part that concats, really.

println!("{}", c);
}

The String::from call converts from a str& — which is effectively a pointer and length to UTF-8 data, to a managed string, more akin to std::string in C++; str& doesn't implement +, I presume b/c it doesn't know what the resulting type should be (and doesn't presume).

A C programmer should easily comprehend why you can't simply add two char * s together; compare:

char *new_string = malloc(strlen(a) + strlen(b) + 1);
if(!new_string) { abort(); }
stpcpy(stpcpy(new_string, a), b);
return new_string;

(that's just the `a + b` line from Rust, in C, essentially)

(hopefully I got that right. stpcpy avoids an extra iteration through a that strcat cannot; I do know about strcat.)

Essentially, in all of Python/Go/Rust, if you has the right type, string concatenation is `a + b`.

> Contemplate this bug report: Is there some API like "select/poll/epoll_wait"? and get a load of this answer:

> > We do not currently have an epoll/select abstraction. The current answer is "spawn a task per socket".

It would need to be cross-platform; so I can understand why Rust isn't there yet in the standard library. There are third-party libraries out there that do this. (And C has nothing here, either…)

You can always call epoll directly, and write the required abstraction yourself. (There are even third-party wrappers for calling epoll, so you don't even have you write that yourself either; see the excellent "nix" library.) If you want a 10 year solution…

> Relatedly, the friction cost of important features like the borrow checker is pretty high.

At first, this is true. Then I felt like I started realizing that what all the "friction" of the borrow checker was it pointing out serious bugs in my code.

Regardless, NTP would be better off in either Rust or Go instead of C, IMO.
Begging is more emotive, and gets across that the question pertains to an important consequence of the statement.
Ask HN: How to Be a Good Technical Lead?
This question had been asked over a year ago[0]. I would like to ask the same question for this year.

[0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13426896
The gravity well is partially a cost and partially a benefit. By having low gravity, the capacity to manipulate objects is greatly improved but having at least some gravity enables a lot of manufacturing processes that would otherwise be complicated by the lack of gravity. One example is laser sintering which needs some force to hold the powder in place. This process in particular is beneficial as it is very heavily utilised in rocket engine production.

Also I agree that asteroid mining needs to happen however the moon would serve as a very good base of operations for such industries.
Until in 5 years, Mozilla sues Curl.
Arrows Across America
> People just aren't comfortable stepping too far outside of their comfort zone semantically (even if they'll happily do so for a few new language features and libraries).

I'm not sure that's fair. It seems more likely that people who choose "boring" languages do so because they have things to build, and want to pick a language with a good risk/reward value. Not out of some academic interest or comfort calculation.
I'm confused by the 72% of women saying that the man should pay.

I thought we were all about equality nowadays!?!

Or is it only all about equality when it comes to getting good things?
Deft-request: Dead simple request client for browser