skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
You need to use the asyncio (or equivalent) event loop if you want to use the asnycio module. loop.run_until_complete() is synchronous though, so you would simply call that and it will block the control flow despite that function being async. You can definitely mix it with legacy code.

I would recommend against it, but if you had an existing framework, you could just make the endpoints lambdas that are something like:

app.route("/whatever", lambda: loop.run_until_complete(async_handler_function()))
This isn't about facts. Science is rarely about facts. Empirical science is and cannot be about proofs. Proofs and facts are for the abstract, the ideal, left to philosophers, logicians, and occasionally mathematicians and computer scientists. No, this is about something much more sinister: denying the ability to reason about and disseminate observations. All empirical science can do is look at things, do experiments and come up with logically consistent and plausible theories or hypotheses that explain them. The value is rarely in the data: the value is in the reasoning around it. Observing, for example, that beaks in birds change depending on the environment is rarely interesting. The interesting bit is reasoning that traits get passed down to offspring in a survival of the fittest scheme. Similarly, observing that combustion engines release CO2, and there is more of it than before we had them … not particularly interesting. The interesting bit is that it acts as insulation to sunlight and that a lot of ecological and climate systems act as non-linear under the influence of temperature and CO2.

Do I say this to downplay empirical science? On the contrary. However, the focus on facts is I think more harmful than it might appear in trying to protect our scientific legacy. Dump every table ever recorded on the internet as a torrent, and very little useful things will come from it. It's protecting the institutions and freedom to reason about, and talk about, those findings that is important; to be able to openly challenge them, and rigorously come up with "best explanations" (a human intellectual construct, not fact, not truth).

Gag orders to silence academic findings, that is problematic. More so than trying to "protect" facts-of-the-matter as if they are somehow the pinnacle of human intellect.

Corollary this is also why I always find "humanities are not science" or "this is not Nature worthy"-statements rather annoying. It's a no-true Scotchman fallacy. Science is more than stamp collection, it's more than peer-review, it's more than running elaborate statistical tests on randomized experiments: it's the collective human endeavor to understand the universe and ourselves, it's a mindset. A mindset that can, and should be, in constant flux as our understanding progresses (and sometimes regresses).
> O bet both George W. Bush and Tony Blair would agree that there were no WMDs in Iraq if you asked them today, if you also Trump, today or in 10 years, about the turnout for his inauguration he would repeat the same lies.

You can use the Obama birth certificate turn around as counter point and that was definitely less than 10 years.
I agree that scientific method needs to be preserved, but honestly, I don't think the current US administration even enters top 10 of dangers to science itself. Science as both the methods and the established culture around it has been in serious trouble for years now, and a lot of that has to do with mass media reporting and with the way incentives for scientists are structured.

As for Trump's administration creating creating a danger for the climate-change mitigation efforts, that's another topic.
This looks like fun!
So it's more acceptable for politicians to admit to their lies at a later date, that to stick to them? Hmm...
I'm not sure why you are getting downvoted so bad. It's a fair point to bring up when people bring up these 500+ mile range runs. The Tesla is restricted to being an amazing city car, and that's OK.

Even if you're in the US and you live in a remote location, the car is crap for road trips. For example, you live in Rock Springs, WY and want to drive to Buffalo, WY. You will be lucky to make it on one charge and adding a supercharger to the route will take you hours out of the way.
Does anyone know how they get around faulty individual cells taking out the whole group?
It's nothing at all like that. Rumsfeld (much as it pains me to support anything he said) was categorizing knowledge in a way that's actually quite useful.

Example: In education it's important for students to learn a wide range of things about a subject, even things they didn't know that they needed. This is why self-taught students often have large but important holes in their knowledge; they simply didn't know what they had to study, so they didn't look for it.

If you know that you don't know something, that's a "known unknown", and you can plan to research it. If you don't know that you don't know something, then that's an unknown unknown, and that's a much harder problem to fix without external help or accidental discovery.
It's interesting to me that your experience with Rails sounds a whole lot like my experience with Node, and vice versa. Granted, I was able more quickly to become productive in Rails for trivial tasks, but the additional time cost it imposed on nontrivial tasks more than swamped the early gain; while I have also found a knee in the efficiency curve for Node, it goes the other way.

But, in general, "friendly, fast, and forgiving" is exactly how I've always found the Node/Express tooling and ecosystem to be, while Rails has been among the least welcoming stacks I've ever had the displeasure to use - and, to your point about having to commit, in deciding "Rails: never again" I essentially threw away most of a year's worth of professional experience, which was so Rails-specific as to offer nothing useful in any alternate context. That's a choice I'm glad I made, rather than chasing the sunk cost, but if we're going to talk about things that require a lot of commitment, I think we have to talk about that kind of thing, too.

Based on the apparently almost mirror-opposite nature of our experiences with these platforms, I'm inclined to wonder whether the characteristics of either are strongly to blame, or whether instead it's a question of preference, or congruence between personal style and that of the platform, or just good vs. bad first impressions.

Not least to that last point, I do agree that a more reliably findable onboarding experience
might be warranted. But it does sort of come down to "put up or shut up", harsh as that may sound; again, without a BDFL or a One Right Way, there is no one to mandate such a thing must be done, and thus, until someone comes along with the knowledge and the passion to do it, that thing does not get done. There's some degree of cost in that, to be sure. But the difference in engagement makes it reasonable to ask whether it's as much of a problem as it might seem.
This is being discussed rather ineptly, but I note that ECHR considers property to be a human right - with qualifications.

http://echr-online.info/right-to-property-article-1-of-proto...

"Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law."

> Everybody should be able to agree on them.

The major problem with rights-based reasoning is that, while you might be able to get people to agree on the rights, you can't necessarily get people to agree on the implications or interpretation of the text.

E.g. Article 8 ECHR effectively overrides the immigration system, which is not immediately obvious from the text.

E.g. US commerce clause in Wickard v. Filmore.
Actually it's scientifically been shown that you can just throw money at people. However, that study was not conducted on scientists, whom I am certain will squander it as they do now.
It beneficial for you as well. You benefit from faster updates. Just like torrenting film is beneficial to you because you benefit from fast movie download.
Then don't buy one.
I realize that after reading the article, most people (including me, unfortunately) read the article as 'Problems WE have with Python'. Maybe a line by author at the top or bottom of the article, reiterating that it's the problem 'he' has with Python -- I know nobody would think such a second clarification would be necessary, but hey, we're humans! -- would help.
There is an often-quoted truthoid that says that any technology takes 50 years from inception to maturity.
Hi chubot, I didn't realize that you are developing a shell as well. It's great to see competitions. Can you share some ideas that you learned from the authors of said shells? I would love to hear those, designing shells is not an easy task.

Structured data pipelines run in the same process as elvish, in goroutines. For interacting with external commands you need to serialize and deserialize, like this:

~> put [foo bar lorem ipsum] | to-json |
python3 -c 'import sys, json;print(json.dumps([x.upper() for x in json.load(sys.stdin)]))' |
from-json
▶ [FOO BAR LOREM IPSUM]
Why Good Developers Write Bad Code [pdf]
> Failure to give up business interests is breaking precedent and confounding ethicists, but also doesn't seem to be illegal.

On the contrary, it's explicitly legal as nothing the President does is considered a conflict. It's like that because otherwise everything and anything could be a construed a conflict of interest. In the interests of not having a continual flood of lawsuits the top of the executive branch is considered to be exempt from conflict of interest laws that otherwise affect the rest of government.
Who would imagine Donald Trump would cause a surge in reading...
Hum. It is difficult without delving into specifics.

When I write code I'm always asking myself questions about future code readers. "Is this understandable enough? Are the identifiers concise? Is the intent of this method clear?". If I must spend 15 minutes on a dictionary looking for the exact name for an abstraction, I do so.

Code written by someone without empathy reads to me like its author has mostly asking himself questions related with functionality: "Does this work? Is this fast enough? Am I using an up-to-date API?". You get lots of names with 'info' or 'data' or 'manager'. Several things named the same way. The same thing named different ways in different places. Long methods, with tangled dependencies. Classes hiding inside other classes' methods. "Clever" code which uses obscure language features in non-standard ways. Etc.

Mind you - I also think about functionality, speed, etc. But most of my mental processing is dedicated to thinking about future maintainers.
[2] Talk is cheap. Honestly, what do you think is going to happen? And in 4 years when we look back, if it doesn't happen - what will you think?

[3] How is it a lie?

> is losing thousands of subscribers

You interpret this as net subscriber count to suit your narrative.

Now if the NYT lost subscribers during the election which they almost certainly did then the first part of the statement is literally correct.

Now the "because" phrase implies causation of "poor coverage". This would be difficult to work out unless the NYT had an exit survey and that data was public.

Without information, Trump is inferring that this is a reason. So if 1000 people left because of poor coverage, his statement is still literally correct.

So I do not understand how you can say it is a "lie" when the statement is "literally" correct.

If you wanted to say that it is "incorrect" then you must argue for your interpretation based on relevance.

If you wanted to say "vague" then you can also say that.

It seems very common place to call everything a "lie" these days, when there is never enough information to evaluate the factuality of it.

Modern "fact-checking" is a scary thing because depending on how you want to define things, you can "prove" any statement true or false how you like. This is a very scary thing.

[5] FOX 8.7M vs CNN 2.6M

[7] didn't happen. That is fake news.
The hilarious thing: I have this CSS book, and it bangs on about how old skool table based layouts, and styling with old skool HTML elements, is BAD because it leads to slow loading, bloated web pages. And speaking purely from a technical perspective, that could be true... but the reality. Like you say, we went the other way. Any of those old 90s/early noughties sites is going to be rocket fast by comparison with many modern sites.
US Intelligence seeks a universal translator for text search in any language
Is there any chance for another Racket book besides Realm of Racket and How to Design Programs? I like the concept of RoR, but I'm not super interested in web programming and it seems to have a lot of that. HtDP is supposed to be like SICP, which is great, but doesn't help me a lot with learning the language (at least not as much).
Yup, quite fun: "We're a rich text editor for poor people."
CoreCLR: Platform Agnostic Linux Binaries
The half-life of facts (knowledge) [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life_of_knowledge
Right. That and the birth certificate thing wasn't a "lie", it was ignorant, dog whistle politicking.

Telling people you are going to strengthen whistle blowing laws to empower workers, then prosecuting a record number of people under the Espionage act is closer to a damaging lie.
wow, thats a good use-case you dont think of often.
> And C is a "slightly cleaned-up assemble with a bit of syntax sugar".

Going from machine-specific assembly to crossplatform C was a huge killer feature at the time.

> I am curious why do you say Scala and Ceylon have killer features, what are those features that Kotlin doesn't have?

Higher-kinded types and/or union types. Those are the real game-changers, even if they don't look like it in simple examples. More concretely, the real value proposition for moving from Java to Scala or Ceylon is "replace all your magic annotation/XML-based proxying/bytecode manipulation with ordinary library functions that follow the ordinary rules of the language".
True, I was just trying to be funny (didn't work) :-)
Udviser by ROAR – Your Personal Augmented Reality Adviser
"Learn computer science youlself"

I'm skeptical about taking advice from someone who doesn't know how to use a spell checker.
Instead of all these unholy alliances, why not just regard all your fellow citizens as allied?

Silly stuff like this will only divide the populace further.

Semites making unholy alliances will only fuel the fire of neo-nazis
Someone was clearly using the arithmetic from 1984 in the inauguration attendance figures. 2+2=5, indeed.
Don't shit where you eat
> overview

Why do you need an overview? It's like stack frames: you can limit your scope to what you're currently doing. The other tabs represent stuff that's "parked" and you aspire to come back to.

(This is why tabs are better than windows for this, because they maintain a linear order while most systems will re-order window order if you visit the windows)

My tab-opening habits predate tabs, because I was raised on Netscape Navigator with a modem using "open in new window" instead. I would read down a page and open interesting-looking hyperlinks in the background, so I didn't have to wait for them to load. Another advantage of this technique on modems was that I could close down the line and carry on reading.
I had to request the desktop site on firefox mobile to be able to see it...
It is hard to accept inputs from people who dont appreciate that any technical decision require understanding the tradeoffs. It is true that python is not perfect, but perfection was never a goal. Python has made some tradeoffs, just like every other technical system. Also, just like any other technical system people are working towards improving in a specific direction. They only way to change or evolve that direction is to be part of the community, understanding it, and then influencing it. Abusing the community, calling it silly is plain stupid. The author's goal is clearly not in influencing a change but self aggrandising and proving himself right.
The poster is making a valid point, in that it lacks range without long breaks dotted about. This isn't a Tesla dealership, this is a discussion forum.
The misnomer in "own wealth" is in the word "own". The only reason that wealth exists is because of history and society. The only reason that its yours to control is because capitalism is a relatively efficient and natural way to allocate and control wealth.

Thought experiment: a world without history & society. 7 billion people, with the resources of the world fairly divided amongst those 7 billion, but these people come into the world as blank adults without any knowledge of the past.

They'd quickly starve. Even hunting and gathering requires a surprising amount of training to do successfully, and the world cannot support 7 billion people in a hunter and gatherer lifestyle.

Even if your Mom & Dad taught you the skills of subsistence farming you'd still starve; we don't have enough farmland to grow enough food for 7 billion without modern farming techniques.

But for the sake of this argument let's suppose your parents taught you how to farm and make your own tools, shelter, etc and you have enough land to live on. Subsistence farming is something you can do on a heavily populated world without the knowledge or cooperation or interference of any others. And it's pretty much the only thing.

Anything else requires history & society & cooperation forced or unforced.

We've the inheritance of Aristotle, Newton, Watt, Einstein, Borlaug, Caesar, Washington, Confucius and innumerable others. We control the wealth because they're all dead and we've inherited it. We're mice standing on the shoulders of giants.

Certainly we have all done something to be granted our wealth. Some of us may have inherited it, but most of us do our 9-5 or more. But what we do is such a small part compared to what came before. We spent 12-20 years in school being taught by society, protected by society, enabled by society and learning from history, given to you by your employer or your customers.

It's efficient and natural for you to control the wealth that comes into your hands; taxation and government implies a certain amount of waste. But society has just as much of a claim as you do. At least on any part more than that of a subsistence farmer.
A lot of arguments can be seen as sensible until one realizes they were pushed by people with a hidden agenda. It's often just the motte part of motte-and-bailey arguments.

That's why there are people (eg. in Europe) who aggressively promote secularism, and many agree with that, until you find out they belong to some hateful anti-islam organization. And that's why some people put science into question, like, how can we be sure of anything, which is defensible from an epistemological standpoint, until you discover they are creationists.

So you want to be careful before giving random people the benefit of the doubt.
"Emolument. Noun. Profit, salary, or fees from office or employment; compensation for services"

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/emolument

Receiving market rate for a service absolutely does count.
> So, you are claiming that he looked into the future to see what happens with the Stasi?

No, I'm claiming that from his position (particularly after his involvement in the Spanish Civil War), he was informed of the founding and early activities of the Stasi, and wrote the book based on the thought-experiment "what if a whole country was dominated by these principles?"

> The "Volkskommissariat" may have been around, but you really can not compare their activity to the Stasi.

That's not surprising, considering how "[i]n reality, K-5 was only nominally housed in the People's Police" (Dennis and Laporte, 2003).
Statistically, I move every three year so far. I do have a lot of stuff though, last time it took half a shipping container for everything. If I extend your logics for my case, I should be driving a container truck every day.

We shouldn't optimize for the exceptional cases. It's far cheaper and easier to think of the main usage first and deal with the exceptions when the time comes. Renting a shipping container once every few years is not that expensive.
I think economy is harder than biology, for the same reason it's harder than physics - because economy involves thinking actors with conflicting goals, many of whom will happily use their cognitive powers to oppose your fixes to the economy. Biology may be complex, but it's not made of actors smarter than you who will work against you, sometimes just out of spite.
Agreed that 'the knowledge' means that a taxi will get you where you need to go and probably by a good route, but whether you can actually find a black cab will be very dependent on where you currently are.

Certain places in Zone 1, no problem, but start moving out to zone 2/3 and the number of them about drop off precipitously. Which is where the newer app-based services shine, essentially taking away more from the minicab business (who don't have to complete 'the knowledge') than the cabs.
> Kotlin has many features that make it better than Java. Most importantly, it is null-safe. In addition to that it makes it simple to enforce data-immutability, which is very difficult in Java.

Kotlin does have nullability handling yes, but it's a very limited special-case feature - it's a language-level builtin rather than something you can use in your own libraries. E.g. if you want to have an error message in the failure case rather than just null (i.e. some kind of Result type), you can't reuse any of the null-safety functionality (whereas in Scala or Ceylon you can write the same methods to work with either optional/nullable or result-like types).

Data immutability isn't at all difficult in Java. It's tedious (sprinkling "final" everywhere), but not hard.
> if you also Trump, today or in 10 years, about the turnout for his inauguration he would repeat the same lies.

I bet good money he'll be saying billions of people watched his inauguration by then.
What are the usecases for having screen with setuid?

EDIT: Found it. It is used for session sharing, although most distros disable it or make it setgid utmp instead.
Oh no! Someone is doing coordinated political activism and they are NOT leftist, this must be stopped immediately! /s

In other news:

- Twitter is used by radical islamists. No one cares.

- Facebook is riddled with islamic hategroups. No one cares.

- Leftist groups sponsored by OSF have been sliding and spamming political forums for years. No one cares.

But the horror if some republicans or right wing types establishes a chatroom for their activism.
The part I hate is that the media and everyone is eating up all these new sound bytes for things like "alternative facts" instead of just calling them what they are, lies, and moving on to more important things like focusing on the actual issues. To give it a fun name like that plays into the spectacle and is exactly what he wants.
>it's a mindset.

No, it's more than that. Without the rigor to come up with testable hypothesis and reproducible results, you might as well be practicing religion. You can have a very inquisitive mindset but without applying scientific rigor, you're right in line with numerologists and whatever else.

That's why people are so hard on shaky humanities studies that have poor experimental design, poor analysis, or terrible biases in the data. You can't derive meaningful conclusions from bad science. Garbage in => garbage out.
I can't agree with this rationale. Your machine will change over the years, while decisions as important as the programming language to choose will remain over time.
> ... from sharing their work

They are banned from tweeting, not sharing research papers.

If tweeting is thier only "work", then they should be disbanded altogether...