skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
In the case of Python and Java, I think it's because generator expressions and Streams, respectively, accomplish much the same thing.

Honestly, if you've seen what LINQ compiles to, it looks an awful lot like a Java 8 Stream.

Using Wikipedia's example of LINQ translation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_Integrated_Query#Lang...):

Written LINQ is:

var results = from c in SomeCollection
where c.SomeProperty < 10
select new {c.SomeProperty, c.OtherProperty};

It compiles to:

var results =
SomeCollection
.Where(c => c.SomeProperty < 10)
.Select(c => new {c.SomeProperty, c.OtherProperty});

And in Java 8:

Stream<> results = someCollection.stream()
.filter(c -> c.getSomeProperty() < 10)
.map(c -> new AbstractMap.SimpleEntry<>(c.getSomeProperty(), c.getOtherProperty()));

(of course, iterating over them is different; you just use a for loop in C#, but in Java you have to either use .forEach() or .collect() to a collection and then for over that)

I think Streams have more LINQ in them than most people think.

Disclaimer: it's been about a year since I've written Java 8, and this is off the top of my head (and the last time I used it, my employer's codebase had a class for pairs that was better than just SimpleEntry), so the code could be wrong.

Edit: and just for completeness... the same in Python generator expressions:

results = ((c.some_property, c.other_property)
for c in some_collection
if c.some_property < 10)

Not very LINQ-like, but it serves the same purpose.
Prior to the recent change to the error format, I found Rust's error messages incredibly obtuse too. It's gotten a lot better lately though.
I appreciate the letter. The following caught my eye, because I was sure we had all learned that the ends do not justify the means. Surely the Zenefits debacle was a lesson in ethics and not one about avoiding getting caught doing the wrong thing.

> we have to work harder to find people doing a startup for the right reason: to bring an idea they’re obsessed with to life, and willing to do something unreasonable to see it happen
This is an incredibly confusing post.

> I find this letter to be deeply cynical... I find it deeply cynical that instead it masquerades as a virtuous plan to help all man kind.

As a matter of fact, this letter is hopeful, not cynical.

It's certainly hoping for something that you don't want, but that's entirely beside the point. No detached native English reader would objectively describe the tone of this piece as "cynical".

Additionally, "masquerade" implies deceit. Do you have any evidence that there aren't Zuckerberg's sincerely held beliefs?

> There's a baked in assumption that a global community is a good thing and that the only possible reason to resist it is because you're being left behind by its benefits

In what sense is this baked in?

On the contrary, the first couple paragraphs are devoted to motivating the global scale of what Zuckerberg perceives as humanity's most pressing challenges -- "...ending terrorism, fighting climate change, and preventing pandemics...".

Zuckerberg isn't saying "we need global cooperation because it's an inherent good." He's identifying concrete problems facing humanity, and suggesting reasons why international cooperation is necessary to tackle those concrete problems.

A substantive response to Zuckerberg would like-wise address these concrete problems and discuss how his proposed solutions are ineffective or counter-productive, rather than rejecting the letter carte blanc in broad rhetorical strokes.

Again, you're free to disagree with Zuckerberg, but calling these "baked in assumptions" is a mis-comprehension.

> I don't think that's true and I certainly don't think it should be assumed a priori.

OK, fair enough!

> There are people in this country, and every where in the world, who don't want globalization. And it's not because they haven't received enough of the benefits or need to be educated better, they don't want it for real reasons and, in a Democracy, that should be an acceptable stance.

Where does Zuckerberg state otherwise?

> If we're not willing to accept that stance than we're forcing people into a global community that matches our vision for the future, not theirs.

Zuckerberg disagrees with you. He's stating that disagreement in a public forum.

Critically, he's NOT suggesting that you shouldn't be allowed to have your opinion! He's just suggesting that your opinion is wrong and that we ought to go a different direction instead.

Existence of opposing political wills working publicly in good faith toward their goals (opposing or otherwise) is a foundation of democracy.

You're effectively suggesting that someone is anti-democractic because they openly oppose your policy agenda. Which is a deeply flawed argument.

> In other words it's a plot for world domination of one world view over another.

All political projects are plots for domination. Even liberty-minded political projects aim to dominate opposing political forces in order to make room for their libertarian projects. Distribution of power is the whole point of politics.

Disparaging politics is fine, of course, but it's a confusing thing to do when you're taking the opposing side of a political battle...
Ask HN: For mobile devs, is 3rd party SDK size a big issue?
Do 3rd party SDKs add significant size to your app?
Camp++ 0x7e0 // pitchfork5 by stf
Was talking to another person at work who is non technical but starting to dip his toes in the waters. He asked how to do just this and I had to go on a fairly long explanation, prompted by repeated questions, into the SQL standard, how that want added until near 3 decades after SQL's invention, vendor specific extensions and syntaxes etc.

It's a pretty bizarre situation.
Do you work on influxdb?
Did you know how to code (in other languages) before diving into Swift?
1.) DDG results tend to be way spammier. Search a product name, get garbage results, rather than links to product pages at various stores.

2.) Index isn't as complete. I very frequently do site: queries on my blog/other people's blogs to find years-old posts that I vaguely remember. Google's indexed them, DDG hasn't.

3.) Google is way better at reading my mind. Vague queries, queries that aren't literal text strings, etc.
where to even begin?

> Zuck: How do we help people build supportive communities that strengthen traditional institutions in a world where membership in these institutions is declining?

what is meant by "traditional institutions"? Maybe the problem is that "traditional institutions" (which are what, exactly? churches?) are not addressing people's real concerns and have become irrelevant.

> Zuck: How do we help people build a safe community that prevents harm, helps during crises and rebuilds afterwards in a world where anyone across the world can affect us?

it sounds like he's talking about responding to terrorist attacks. this is such vague language that it can be interpreted to mean anything at all. sounds like he's practicing writing campaign rhetoric. Zuck wants to run for president?

> Zuck: How do we help people build an informed community that exposes us to new ideas and builds common understanding in a world where every person has a voice?

I hope he's sincere about this. Facebook has proved itself to be one of the greatest disseminators of propaganda, distortions, clickbait, manipulative media, and many varieties of malicious (as in privacy violating) advertising and data-mining. I somehow doubt we're going to see a real reversal of policy on this subject from Facebook. Maybe I'm just cynical and jaded but being a vehicle for disinformation and invasive advertising has made Facebook a lot of money.
> That fails if you do a first-order implementation because you have no way of knowing whether the person voting/sharing had already read the article, but not necessarily shared it at the time of reading.

It might still hold for a large group of people, though, and be valid in a statistical sense? Which is what they're really after.
Paying the fair amount of taxes wouldn't hurt either.

Yes, it's not illegal to do those crazy tax schemes, but it sure is unethical.

I believe he truly, in his own powerful bubble, thinks
that he does good to the world and sincerely doesn't understand he is big part of the people rejecting globalization.
One simple way to improve the quality of news republished on Facebook (albeit at a possible loss of some revenue) is to pull out the date of publication and clearly indicate to the person sharing how old the article is. Well-meaning friends are constantly posting urgent-sounding stories about events that happened months or years ago because they overlooked the date of publication.

For example, I know a good few people who are opposed to that pipeline being built in North Dakota right now. Unfortunately they sometimes repost any news story about an oil spill or pipeline failure they come across in the mistaken assumption that they're seeing because it just happened.
It's only the Jonny-come-lately languages like Algol and its descendants that are zero-based :-)
We've gone from 85% of the global population in extreme poverty to 25%.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/declining-global-poverty-...
For me, LINQ is fundamentally list comprehensions on steroids. Way better than Pythons, about the same as using list functions in Haskell or F#, Java's finally caught up with its stream library.

The LINQ to SQL stuff annoys me, because while it works, it's a painful disaster to implement yourself against your own data stores. Believe me, I've tried.
The Yankees have multiple owners. The Steinbrenner family has a majority stake though.
You wouldn't classify community participation and happiness as benefits?
you seem to be confusing neo-liberalism with "the left".
> Yes, laws against wife beating are made ...

You are (I assume deliberately) missing my point, which is not that the law is too strict about misbehaviours characteristic of the poor but that it is too lenient about misbehaviours characteristic of the rich.

> On the one hand, the tone of your post suggests you strongly disagree with me. Yet you've just explicitly stated complete agreement with me on my core point.

First: you might consider the possibility that I might agree with you about some things and not others. Second: there are at least two possible versions of a point similar to the one I am agreeing with. One (with which I very much do not agree) says: the reason these people are poor is because they are inferior people -- stupid, lazy, etc. -- and they neither deserve nor will profit from sympathy or financial help. The other (with which I agree, with reservations) says: for the most part, these people behave much as anyone else would if put in their circumstances from early in life; some of their troubles are caused in part by their behaviour, but that behaviour is in turn caused in part by their troubles, and by and large the troubles come first.

These two perspectives agree on at least one important point: The most effective ways of dealing with poverty will attack it systemically rather than by playing whack-a-mole with individual cases.

> Adriand discussed ...

You may not have noticed, but there were two people in that thread taking positions different from yours, and the one you were actually replying to was not adriand and wasn't making the exact same claims.

Anyway: when you say "anyone can do X", I suggest it means more than "it is not literally impossible for anyone to do X". If in one country 7% of people who start in the poorest quintile get into the richest quintile, and in another 13% do, then there is a difference between those countries in how true it is that "anyone can get rich".

Perhaps anyone can go from rags to riches, in the sense that it's not literally impossible for them to do so. But that's compatible with there being substantial obstacles in the way, and if the fraction of people who manage it is small that's evidence for (though not proof of) such obstacles.

Is 7% small enough to make it strong evidence? As it happens I'm inclined to think not; your reply to adriand wasn't the one I disagreed with and replied to. That was your reply to timr. And the claim you made there was this: It's a myth to say that it's a myth that social mobility in the US is low because poor Americans choose not to do things that would help them get not-poor.

It doesn't seem to me that you've done a good job of defending that claim, which is more or less equivalent to the claim that social mobility in the US is in fact low because poor Americans choose not to do things that would help them get not-poor.

If at some point you want to discuss this with attention to the actual points at issue rather than just engaging in snark and presupposing all your claims, do let me know.
I meant combat loss.
Yeah although that doesn't mean the language isn't changing. Just that your old 1.0 code will still work.
Actually, i think it's more about:

- Prototype and use Linq first ( faster to develop and good enough queries in production)

- Static Typed LINQ reduces mistakes ( a domain object changes, an error appears in your code), definatly later on the road when changing the domain.

- Iterate and improve when i goes slow. Try to keep LINQ, but off course, SQL is faster.
> SQL's a pretty grim language, but it's the only language the database understands as a first-class citizen. Until someone designs a new foundation (like WebASM is doing), the rest is just syntactic sugar.

SQL is an ugly COBOLesque veneer over an elegant relational calculus core.

But the "new foundation" you speak of already exists, and has for decades. Competing query languages based on relational calculus are less ugly – QUEL, D, etc.

Sadly, those better looking query languages have failed in the marketplace–ugly SQL won.
Luckily there are many great free courses available to help you cover this ground:

https://www.udacity.com/course/how-to-use-git-and-github--ud...

https://www.udacity.com/course/software-testing--cs258
Design Patterns – A comprehensible guide
Lee Jae-Yong, Samsung Heir, Is Arrested on Bribery Charges
Lifetimes can be confusing as hell, especially declaring them correctly. It looks like section 10.3 in this new book improves things.
Or it's to protect nearby receivers. A Tesla Coil I built in middle school wiped out TV and radio reception for most of the block...
What if I have my phone set to wipe itself after 10 incorrect login attempts, and I "accidentally" get my password wrong 10 times while trying to unlock it for them?
And then you have no more errors in the VS Error Window ( LINQ is static typed), when someone changes the domain layer and everything goes to * when going into production and now you have to manually check all strings if they are adjusted..

As said before, change to pure SQL WHEN something goes too slow. You don't have to change everything. It will bite you in the * later ;)

Gotta love static typed :)
I find the idea of a "global in-group" to be a utopian fantasy. This is like saying "Communism is a great economic system". The ideal of it is great. We don't live in a world of ideals. We live in a world of flawed, frail, and sometimes vicious people.
I was talking solely about the non-HN, Republican crowd.
Argument by Gary Foshee

"My solution was based on set theory. Look at the entire set of all families with two children. Then look at a subset: those with two boys. Then look at another subset: those with a boy born on Tuesday. If you look at it that way, then 13/27 is the correct answer."
In the real world, MOST people are using the "it compiles to" version directly in the code. I certainly don't write the "from x in y select" version, except in the case of multiple hairy joins. Even those have become second nature at this point.

It's just more readable, and turns it into an object pipeline/functional programming style instead. The Java 8 streams were pretty much directly taken from LINQ and given their traditional functional names.
"Any tips for reading up on how different communities can learn to coexist peacefully?"

A) Balance of power (roughly equal in strength)

B) Mutual dependence (trade)

C) Some degree of truthfulness and transparency (i.e. freedom of information, speech, free press, institutions with integrity)

Nations co-exist peacefully in a dynamic equilibrium. When that equilibrium is shifted (one weak, one strong i.e. power vacuum) - this creates conflict.

This is why 'peacekeeping' as envisioned by the UN largely failed. A bunch of lightly-armed 'blue helmets' effectively does nothing to remedy the underlying causes driving conflict.
I'm still tryig to figure out how to process all this.

My first thought is, communities do not need facebook to form/grow. They never have.

However, even in light of the Arab Spring and other social uprisings around the world, I still can't buy into anything Zuck says.

I just can't reconcile in my head how the most detailed online advertising machine can ever 'help create' any real or longstanding community.

Real communities are based on real people with real interactions. Granted, I know there are discussions and groups on fb (my wife is part of a group that meets up every few mos in the 'real world'). But i also see how mich time people spend with their faces plowed into their devices, ignoring the real world going on around them.

I'm not saying fb or twitter aren't powerful tools to organize with. I am saying that I put little to no faith into them as stewards of global community building. Their motives are not altruistic and I'm sure if their ad market dropped out next week, we would not see any of these types of posts from Zuck.

And regarding the fake news bit, what's to do about that? People found massive audiences in their system and deliberately posted lies to sway opinions. To me, that's a complete failure of the benefit of fb ('connecting' the world) and why I just don't believe anything that comes out of there.

I been on campus numerous times and have quite a number of friends that work there, so it's not like I don't get fb and how they make their money. I really do. But, are these really the types of companies we want to build? You can probably say this about a lot of tech companies nowadays, but when it's free, you're the product.. This is not good for the global community long term.
thanks, I appreciate the links :)
So, if I want the paper book when it's out, and to read the early release ebook now, do I have to pay twice?
It could definitely help as long as it's appropriately weighted rather than being a binary choice. It'll be interesting to see how it pans out.
It always helps me to picture a probability space (as in, an actual physical space, where size correlates to probability).

Assuming that children are always a boy or a girl, and are equally likely to be a boy or a girl, the 'complete space' of families with two children would be distributed as
ABBC
where A means two boys, B means a boy and a girl, and C means two girls. By excluding C from the space, ABB remains. So indeed, the probability would be 1/3 that both children would be boys.

But now I have made another assumption, namely that the family is picked uniformly random from all families with two children with at least one boy.

As you can see, there are quite a lot of assumptions. One convention seems to be that when you can't tell for sure how something is distributed, it is uniformly distributed.

For example, when a person blindly grabs a ball from a box with one red and one blue ball (and no other balls), the probability is not always 50% that he grabs the red ball. The red ball might be a bowling ball and the blue one might be the size of a marble.

While in this example it is reasonable to assume a uniform distribution, you can point out similar, but more subtle assumptions in most questions about probability.

A more complicated example:
Weatherman A predicts the weather right 70% of the time.
Weatherman B predicts the weather right 60% of the time.
Weatherman A predicts rain tomorrow, weatherman B predicts dry weather. What is the probability that it will rain tomorrow?

The 'right' answer is 14/23. In order to arrive at this answer, you need to assume that the predictions are statistically independent (which is an unrealistic assumption). Indeed, it is easy to sketch a situation in which the probability is different: it is always dry, weatherman A predicts rain 30% of the time, and weatherman B predicts rain 40% of the time. This is consistent with the question, and the probability that there will be rain tomorrow is obviously 0%.

This lack of rigor always bothers me.
Someone seems to write one of these every few years about whatever the flavor of the month is. I recall reading one from sometime in the early 2000s about Hibernate that read the same way. And another one for one of the Perl ORMs before that.

Yet somehow, dirty, ugly, hard-to-write SQL is still here while ORMs keep coming and going. And I have yet to see one without an escape hatch allowing raw SQL.
Indeed there is this caveat and its exploitation possibilities. I appreciate the thorough insight, thanks for taking the time!
> Why is this about left or right or the hypocrisy of anyone?

Because we have eyes and brains and we use language to describe what's going on. There might be some instances of people who called themselves leftists who opposed something which we're now referring to as a leftist agenda. It's not a perfect black and white classification scheme but the deep link between leftism and globalization is painfully obvious to anyone with a brain. We're polarized because we disagree, deeply, trying to mix up the language used to describe that disagreement isn't going to make us less polarized.
https://github.com/jinzhu/gorm is quite ok
And also, that in the meantime, the compiler got much better at analyzing and optimizing the program. So the compiler got faster and better. So while it is still slower than 1.4, it does produce better code.
Hmm, didn't think of it like that. Although most things are indeed quite reflective in the infrared. You should choose a frequency that humans would absorb, but walls and furniture etc would reflect. Or you would need to buy "certified microwave non-absorbing" wares only for such rooms.
Mark Zuckerberg: Building Global Surveillance
I don't want to be one of those people who go on about the fact that they're not on Facebook, but what if they asked me for my Facebook logins and I told them I don't have any social media accounts? (I mean, bar Github if you count that as a social network).
The thing you're missing is the way that LINQ creates an anonymous type, which is used to close over the values in the expression:

var results = from a in x
from b in y
from c in z
select a * b * c;

Is very much more attractive than:

var results = x.SelectMany(a => y.SelectMany(b => z.Select(c => a * b * c)));

If you use LINQ for more than just SQL queries (for monadic types like Option, Either, etc.) then these types of expression are commonplace. I'd certainly rather use C#'s LINQ grammar over its fluent API.
It was also a joke on the first season finale of Silicon Valley.
I know many are going to disagree but I have come to despise almost all SQL generators unless they are as close to 1-1 as possible (aka Lukas Eder's jOOQ is acceptable in my book).

Even more controversial... I don't want to make it any easier for developers to interact with the database unless it is absolutely correct and transparent. I know.. I know... how could I say such I thing! But you see I want every interaction with the our data repository... our precious data repository... that is usually the bottleneck... I want you to know WTF you are doing when you touch it.

We (my company and probably others) are past the days of monolithic rapid prototype apps with ORMs. Now you pick a database and you learn the hell out of it because you can stick to it. Back in the day one of the reasons ORMs were so popular because companies would have to ship on premise ware that would have to work with multiple databases. With the cloud that is no longer the case. However I still think a lot of .NET shops come from the on premise mentality. Thus performance is less of concern (speed of release is more desired).