skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I struggle with this. After years of studying OO and design patterns in Ruby and JavaScript I was having troubling building complex asynchronous systems and stumbled into Go. I saw the value of types for managing that complexity and the runtime for supporting asynchronous primitives, but internally was very limited by the lack of generics for things like collections and higher order control flow for things like error handling.

Eventually I arrived at Haskell after strongly considering Clojure, and I'm very happy about what I've learned and my new way of approaching programming complexity. Unfortunately there is nowhere else to go from here since I can't find employment as a Haskell programmer. OCaml, F#, Scala, Elixir, and Elm all feel like a step back. Now I'm a Java programmer and quite miserable. I feel hampered by the language nearly everyday in terms of how easily I can express my thoughts in code. Haskell isn't perfect but is the best fit for my mathematical mindset.

I am trying to lead by example. I help host my city's Haskell meetup and contribute to a Haskell reading group. The path is lonely, my co-workers poke fun at me, and don't care to put in any effort to understand what I have to say. I love teaching and explaining things but there is zero interest because the machine keeps moving. Not many at the office even enjoy Java but are resigned to do it for our large pool of enterprise clients. All in all each work day is a void I put 8 hours into, which is fine, compared to most working conditions; it causes no suffering beyond the lacuna.

I'm past the stage of trying to convince other programmers anything. I recognize many are happy with their tools. I yearn for that happiness and don't seek to spread my misery. I offer my time to those who are interested and want to learn more.

Anyway, this article nails it, Haskell has advantages but they aren't enough to change things without the infrastructure the author is building. I look forward to being an early adapter of Unision and continue to remain hopeful for the future despite the long odds.
Picking a random real number in the range [0,1] is impossible. The expected length of its simplest description is infinite, and if you cant describe it you haven't actually picked it.
There are 2 issues with that:

- People who only need basic functionalities don't bring any money

- People who need paid functionalities don't get to try them in the free version

So as much I as like free tiers as a user, for a business I think "free trial" is the way to go.
It's a product that is strictly show to get people thinking of purchasing Apple equipment to look over Microsoft's way.

It's so niche it never will be anything but a concept car.
>IQ is normalized, but that doesn't change the shape of the distribution. It changes the scale, but not the shape.

It means talking about an IQ of 5 million as somehow analogous to linear extrapolations of height or age means the author has no clue what they're talking about. The only way to have an IQ that high is to have a population large enough for it to be meaningful, while the other example are possible statistically (if not physically).

Anyway, having now read through the rest of the article, my critique is much simpler: they're using a simplified model with specific magic constants, and using it to derive exact values for other unknowns (specifically talent).

>Half the time it will come up heads and yield a return of 30 percent, and on the rest of the tosses it will come up tails and yield a loss of 10 percent. The numbers are chosen to give an average annual return of 10 percent, plus or minus 20 percent, which is typical of investments in the real stock market, but the overall conclusions do not depend on these specific numbers.

But then they say

>How big can this “talent differential” be and still stay statistically consistent with the power law wealth distribution we see in the real world?

>It turns out that it can’t be more than about 1 percent.

I haven't dug into the numbers here, but I'm comfortable discounting their conclusion because of the clear signs of unfamiliarity with concepts mentioned, as above. Also, they seem to be assuming that most of these people made their money investing, but that's unrealistic, yet they cite articles about money managers. It may very well be that money managers perform randomly, but that clearly shouldn't extrapolate to other rich people. The whole model is incorrect, people get rich by doing many other things (start a business, invent a product, etc) many (most?) of which are, in fact, related to talent but are completely missed by the model.

They casually throw out the claim that "They cannot possibly be the whole story at the high end, where people’s wealth is primarily determined by capital gains or losses on investments." but with no citation, and, as above, I doubt that. (A quick search turns of up http://www.forbes.com/sites/erincarlyle/2013/09/18/how-self-... which says investing is plurality but not a majority of the top 400's sources of wealth).

They keep on going back to people like Gates and Jobs, further confusing the question.
I think it's generally accepted that unemployment and inflation estimates are based on reliable techniques: what sorts of errors are you thinking of here? I mean, in principle, anything you do could be wrong (you can never reach absolute certainty), but you would always do better by trying to analyse things properly than by giving up.

Edit: I didn't mean surveys in general, I meant the specific cases of unemployment and inflation, which to my mind are the two most prominent examples of people going crazy rejecting well-established facts.
It's not just McLuhan - even Ayn Rand's "villain" in the Fountainhead was a caricature of Wm. Randolph Hearst.

That's turned out to be quite useful in understanding how distorted American history is, and floats independent of any controversial ideological content in her work.

People were a lot more naive in 1964 in general. I am not sure that McLuhan was taken seriously then.

Tow things I'll never fully understand about America in the post-war era - how is it that the Dulles brothers were allowed to operate as state-sponsored Filibusters[1] and how is it that Jim Crow was so heavily defended?

[1] see William Walker in South America for that word - a person who engages in unauthorized warfare.
I remember using GetRight back in the 90s.
So buy an Apple and make it look like a Dell. Seems like a winner. /s
Dubious validity?? Participate in the market and try to replicate what you think are dubious counterarguments with achievable and repeatable results.

People like Buffet and Einhorn are extreme anomalies. So much so that they are legendary, they are that unusual. There are only a small handful of legendary investors throughout history for a reason.
One of my favorite books - I initially bought a copy based on a review by Brandon Rhodes [0]:

> But the real reason to learn awk is to have an excuse to read the superb book The AWK Programming Language by its authors Aho, Kernighan, and Weinberger. You would think, from the name, that it simply teaches you awk. Actually, that is just the beginning. Launching into the vast array of problems that can be tackled once one is using a concise scripting language that makes string manipulation easy — and awk was one of the first — it proceeds to teach the reader how to implement a database, a parser, an interpreter, and (if memory serves me) a compiler for a small project-specific computer language! If only they had also programmed an example operating system using awk, the book would have been a fairly complete survey introduction to computer science!

[0]: http://stackoverflow.com/a/703174/2912179
Ask HN: Are tech companies asking too much of their candidates?
I see many job posts that appear to require candidates to have both broad and deep knowledge of the entire stack.

With related experience using a number of competing[1] services and technologies.

Maybe individual specializations have grown to encompass much more than I realized. Particularly in distributed systems and devops, where there's a lot of options and activity.

I'm sorry I don't have any examples, I'll try to add some when I return home. Wanted to get some unbiased opinions first.

[1] I'm not sure how anyone could gain professional experience with a number of competing services unless their company is constantly changing stacks or the employee leaves to other teams.
The linked page doesn't seem to have any info other than the stats. Can someone explain the reason for the spike?
Careful - both measures that you mention have baked-in assumptions. Inflation measures are based on a 'standard' basket of goods and services which needs to be chosen, and unemployment measures are dependent on definition: are all those looking for a job unemployed? All those on government assistance? All those working less than a given number of hours a week?

It was a favourite trick of British governments in the 80s and 90s to continually change the definition of unemployment, both to reduce the headline numbers and to prevent the construction of comparable data series.
I have used it for about a month. I feel like it may be good for most people, but google is far more precise for hard to find pages and answers to programming questions, error strings, etc.
The answer to 1&2 combined is "watch talks by Rich Hickey": https://github.com/tallesl/Rich-Hickey-fanclub

Once the messages set in, any ClojureScript-specific tutorial will be a breeze.
The allegation in the media was that Russia hacked the DNC email servers to discredit Clinton and allow Trump to win.
In the short term, investing may indeed be more luck than talent, however this article strives to imply that market-beating results are essentially pure luck, which simply isn't the case over time. Over time, the best investors will always wind up with market-beating returns, and the worst investors will always wind up with market-trailing returns. Like any game with significant short-term variance, those with the greatest skill might not be readily apparent from a small sample size of results - I might beat Phil Ivey for a day or even a month at a poker table. But if we play long enough, I literally have no chance of being ahead of him. The same holds true for investors.

Articles like this seem like a cop-out for failed investors, and perhaps an argument for using index funds. If it's all luck, then your own failings aren't your fault. But that view doesn't apply to most areas of life, including and perhaps especially when it comes to investing decisions.
Looks like they found a similar "3rd party email service / subdomain MX record" exploit with Slack.[1] Although not so severe in Slack's case because it's a lesser used feature. Looks like Slack is using Mailgun.[2]

[1] http://blog.pentestnepal.tech/post/150381068912/how-i-snoope...

[2] http://mxtoolbox.com/SuperTool.aspx?action=mx%3aslack.com&ru...
Go doesn't use less resources then Java (Source: Google [1]).

Go is only marginally ~10% faster then Java [2]

[1] https://days2011.scala-lang.org/sites/days2011/files/ws3-1-H...

[2] https://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64q/go.html
I'm guessing zookeeper was killed because Raft was implemented here. Have you experimented with Jepsen to see how this handles network partitions?
Shenzhen real estate value is approaching Tokyo's of the late 80s...I won't spoil how that ended.

Living abroad can actually be cheaper than china, especially for middle class Chinese who want public education for their kids, a nice car, a house at a more decent price, oh and clean air (SZ is better than most, but still not good by developed world standards). It really is no wonder there are still so many Chinese immigrants coming into the states even with China's "success".
Ask HN: Deep Learning on Edge?
Is it beneficial to do deep learning on the edge? For example on sensors or on cameras or on edge gateway connecting multiple devices.

Which network architectures should be considered given limited size of training dataset on the edge?
> Also didn't work out.

Are you implying that Scala.js didn't work out? That would be denying the huge success it has within the Scala community. It is notably supported by most major Scala libraries. To back this by data, it appears 5th in a ranking of Maven artifacts based on the number of artifacts depending on it [1]. Above it are Scala itself, Specs2, Akka and scoverage.

Scala/.NET didn't work out because we never managed to reconcile the type system of Scala with that of the CLR. For JavaScript, we did manage that, and pretty easily: it's much easier to erase all types than converting from an advanced type system to another advanced type system.

[1] https://scaladex.scala-lang.org/search?q=&page=1&sort=depend...
Joystick Gremlin
Pretty funny that this apparently got flagged. Perhaps a couple entitled investors didn't like this particular message.
I Absolutely agree. Overall it's probably a mix of many things like luck, talent, insider information, ability to go against dominant investing ideas, where you start in life (if you are wealthy at birth that's equivalent to many coin-flips), etc.
I can't find anything blatant in the news that would explain something like this, especially of this magnitude.

I think it might be a botnet or something similar, although that's just conjecture at this point.
If at the same time we could move some responsibility from the client to the server, it would be awesome.

Kafka gives so much responsibility to the client that most implementations are incomplete and don't cope well with state changes (e.g. adding or removing a node, migrating partitions to an other node, etc).

So, unless you are using Java and the official client, you don't benefit from all of Kafka goodness, fault tolerance and scaling abilities.
Go will lead to a generation of "stupid" developers writing "stupid" code because they were told you don't need "this or that", then the next generation will rediscover things such as functional programming,generics or type classes. Or Go will evolve to something more complex, like every language do and early adopters will be pissed off things aren't like the "good old times" anymore as they are incapable of using constructs they don't understand.

Go developers already have that "dumb-down" reputation.
Any chance this could be a state-sponsored attack aimed at correlating traffic?
The JWT example in the readme works, but another valid JWT does not. Ubuntu 16.04.
Which makes unwinding very hard. So they keep pumping up the bubble and kicking the can down as long as possible...they have no other choice unless they can eventually blame an external entity (Trump might be a godsend for the CPC).
Well 80% of statistics are just made up... (this is a joke...)
Overly cynical comment. Article author isn't a psychologist, so has no reason to be a 'salesman'. Additionally, the question of how changeable an individual's personality is, is a perfectly valid and interesting topic to research. (Unfortunately the article does not mention the title, or provide a link to the research).
AFAIK Apple only actually protects patents that they actually implemented.
There isn't enough info to automatically close accounts just because they use the same name and profile photo as other users (keep in mind that profile pictures can be of anything such as a flag found through Google Images).

They probably only investigate and close imposters if they receive complaints from other users.
Welp, I know what I'm doing with my Saturday! Thanks!
Clif Asness is a successful investor. I wouldn't dismiss his findings so easily.

> this paper only starts in 1976

Explaining Buffett's performance since 1976 is an informative exercise.
There's a 98.328% chance that statistics are used to deceive the consumers of the lossy compression of information.
The article is posing a question to those who believe Haskell is great. "Assume for the sake of argument that Haskell is great...then why hasn't it taken over the world?"

Anecdotally, I can't think of a case of someone who's used Haskell with proficiency and feels another language is generally better. But I can think of many cases of people who, confronted with the learning curve, set it aside to learn something else more immediately applicable.

Just looking at some bullet points, Haskell offers:

* A nice interpreter,

* Default immutability,

* A flexible and clear type system.

Default immutability does make reasoning about your program much easier. I don't think anyone would argue that but if you disagree it'd be interesting to hear what you have to say.

The absence of an interpreter in Go is a major nuisance, and makes it about as difficult as Rust to try out something simple.

Whether you like the type system of Haskell or not, it is pretty good for the kind of type system it is. There is a joke that Haskell libraries don't have any documentation and when people complain the Haskellers say, the types are enough. At a certain point you realize this is true: you get a lot more out of a Haskell type signature than a Java or C type signature, so much so that your approach to a library is generally "I'm looking for a function A -> B..." and you fish around by type. This is the dream of types: meaningful, machine-checked metadata.
Hello, sudshekhar,

I am not using Haskell in my day to day job, yet, but I am using Elixir, and have been since last April.

For learning Elixir, I highly recommend Dave Thomas' book Programming Elixir, The Little Elixir & OTP Book, by Benjamin Tan Wei Hao, and the website https://www.learnelixir.tv. You may want to start with the website and jump into the books afterwards. I learned with the two books, but one of my co-workers started with the website, and said he found it quite helpful. I watched the tutorial videos after the fact, and they are quite good.

The website https://www.dailydrip.com also has a lot of Elixir tutorials (similar to Avdi Grimm's website, Ruby Tapas), but you have to be careful because the older videos contain descriptions of features that are deprecated. I wouldn't bother with Daily Drip until you have a solid foundation in Elixir, and can pick around the deprecated bits. The later videos on Daily Drip are up-to-date though.
Faraday Future received only 60 paid reservations
Matt - Are you going to resist the Trump administration OR are you going to enable it?

Sounds like you think you can some how make bad less bad.
actually 256-bit key size is not a "big" burden for people.
I've seen lots of JWT implementationens which use key sizes > 1024 bits.
Consider the Mime64 encoded Bit String:

> 8Jbr+vX5JpFZOW7P1RLs7/ArYy1Az7hrimMfcI3qqBI=

This "small" Key is already 256-Bit.
if decoded to an Array in Java:

> java.util.Base64.getDecoder.decode("8Jbr+vX5JpFZOW7P1RLs7/ArYy1Az7hrimMfcI3qqBI=").length * 8
> res7: Int = 256

if you try to decode a jwt with it, it takes forever. (Actually I guess you also need to raise the length of the progam but it's akward since you probably don't know the correct length.

Actually I use HMAC-SHA512 with key sizes between 1024-Bit to 2048-Bit.

Edit: Typo
> but Buffett is the most successful investor of all time

Last I checked, Renaissance Technologies and Vista Equity Partners outperform Buffett. RenTech is the opposite of a value investor and Vista does technology LBOs.
Why is only the most important topic worthy of discussion? Why can you only see the other side's extremities?

Trump's admission of grabbing woman by their genitalia was a conversation he assumed would remain private. Podesta's emails were conversations he assumed would remain private. Yet, the naked partisans of our country somehow see the subject matter of one as the the important take away, while the method of acquisition as the distraction. Those same naked partisans, without any modicum of irony see the other matter in the complete opposite terms: the method of acquisition is paramount, and absolves the content discovered.

Por que no las dos?
This is probably the case. I don't think that there's any indication that UAE users are starting to use Tor en masse.
Crashes have happened multiple times over the last 20 years, the recent being the Chinese stock market crash a year ago. It would be stupid not to predict a crash, as they are pretty common. Collapse is much worse, and isn't being predicted by the western media. If you google news "china economic collapse" you'll find Chinese media talking about how the west media is predicting this, but oddly enough, no western mainstream media actually predicting that (beyond Gordon Chang, no one at all).
Wouldn't a state-sponsored entity be smarter than routing all their traffic through UAE such that it could receive attention on HN? I like the botnet explanation better.
> The thing is, nature has a way of not caring what the Establishment thinks. It does care on a surface level, but it also conspires to cause the collapse of the socio-information paradigms that the Establishment creates.

You're right as far as you go, but actually nature doesn't care what anyone thinks. One thing to question is how the establishment got to be established. If it was primarily through physical strength, heredity, or persuasion (as is more true for the bulk of history), then they are no more likely to be right than a plebe (except that p(persuasive | true) > p(persuasive)). But it's more true than in most of history that the odds of being an elite are much higher if you can consistently make correct predictions about the world.

It's true that we don't have a central authority to give us an objective reality, but we don't need one either. Reality is there if only you choose to observe it closely. I think the best technique for dealing with the soup of information is to find bona fide experts with a track record of providing correct explanations and giving what they say more weight.
The "statistics" is only in decline because it was blatantly used to try and sway the election. As in, oversampling demographics to get the necessary conclusion, phrasing the questions such that you're "literally Hitler" if you answer them "wrong" and so on. I quoted "statistics" because it's not statistics, it's pretty obvious propaganda, using the most shameless tricks in the book. Editors of Soviet Pravda would be proud. We know much of this thanks to Wikileaks now, as well as because it was so blindingly obvious that only a complete moron would think the polls were impartial.

I'm not afraid of "what's next" because as far as political polling is concerned (calling it "statistics" is way too generous), it just can't really get any worse than it already is.
All we have is now
I'm not sure I understand the benefit of being able to share the same browser window.
The Humble Logarithm
I have two questions for you:

- How does Haskell fare with large projects that use APIs that are inherently stateful, like OpenGL? Don't things get messy and ugly as the pure world of Haskell is being tainted?

- How do I optimise Haskell code without having studied the language for decades? I had a lecture where we were taught Haskell, so I know the language, but darn, even a simple hash map seems to be so very complex in the language. The fact that everything is a linked list (bad for caching & performance) and everything gets copied around really turns me off.
Haskell doesn't make it clear what things will process the fastest. For example in Java you can use hashmaps or arraylists depending on the situation and it is easy to optimize for run time. But I'd have no idea how to do this in Haskell.
I highly suspect that any entity that has the ability to monitor US communications also has the ability to monitor communications outside the US. (I'm strongly underestimating.)
I don't know, but I find that expediency is usually a very real concern in such operations so it seems plausible for the UAE to cut corners and route traffic in a convenient (though not covert) manner.

Moreover, they may wish to route traffic through nodes they control.

I understand your point, but then again, I don't see why a botnet would route it's traffic through the UAE either.
Could this be a result of the articles about a "backdoor" in whatsapp?