skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Good article. Shame he isn't necessarily considered to be part of the 'canon' of historical cooks and mentioned in the same way as Carème, Escoffier, La Varanne or even Taillevent.

I also love how elaborately seasoned dishes were from that time period. A lot of people view cuisine as something static, and they see French, Italian, Russian cuisine as something frozen in time, with only 'indigenous' ingredients. Never mind the fact that all these cuisines retain ingredients from the new world, the silk road, and techniques from abroad.

It's also an interesting historical anecdote about the excesses of the Catholic Church during that period.
Actually 31% likes its simplicity (4th rank is simple, 14%).

Other similar answers:

2% easy to learn,
2% simple syntax,
2% simple language,
1% easy to use,
1% easy to write,
1% ease of use

In the case of generics there's another 1% answer on generic
> And you'd probably do better if you weren't condescending towards other people's experiences and preferences.

It was simply intended as good advice.

If you think about it, there are good reasons for moving settings to a simpler, touch-sensitive, sandboxed app.

If you think about it, there are good reasons for moving settings from the Control Panel in stages, and for keeping the mouse-oriented Control Panel program around for people who have grown used to it.

If you've read the book, the anger is a System 1 rant and should be modified by System 2 thinking.
> Why is the battle almost exclusively being portrayed as it being immoral and unethical for only the USA to have any border control at all of any form, rather than the somewhat more likely and seemingly easier to convince specifics of this individual border control ruling being wrong?

Context is everything. The US is already regarded as having a well-working, effective screening process for visa and refugee applications. This means that it's hard to find any justification for drastic, emergency-sounding restrictions. Particularly since Trump was well-known for espousing a religious test ("Muslim ban") on the campaign trail, Giuliani says this is what he suggested when asked how to implement the Muslim ban, and the government hasn't offered any evidence for why the additions are necessitated for national security, it is rather easy to assume that this is an attempt to ban Muslims. And imposing a religious test runs afoul of the Constitution, even if there were good reasons for it.
Notation is created to encode information - the intent here. A silly example: replacing self with a snowman unicode. There is no reason to do so - but now when you look at a buffer, you will be able to see all instances of self instantly. Its about parsing semantics, not making things pretty (despite the package names).
Of course God exists; Man created Him.
On the other hand I've found that for 98% of searches Google gives me exactly what I want as the first option and the other 2% Google makes some assumptions about my search and gives me garbage. Overall I'm very happy with it and it's definitely better for me than it was, it's interesting to see how different users can have very different perceptions of the same product
Not everything has to be equally discoverable. By that same logic, the majority of right click interactions are off the table. You can right click window icons in Windows too, with no visual cue either, they just act different and the surface area is much smaller. Titlebars also don't tell you you can drag them, and essential productivity shortcuts like alt-tab are not advertised either.

It's okay to have to be taught some things, it makes it better for pro users when the handholding is minimal.

Here's another one: hold alt when a menu is open to see some options change into alternate versions. Instant feedback, works on dialogs too. Keeps the UI uncluttered for noobs and power users alike without significantly impeding you.
I almost banned you before realizing you were probably talking to your instructor. It's good to build up a substantive comment history before posting like this!
In addition to taking an Algorithms course I would take a course that focuses on C and ASM. Parent comment does not imply I would only take an Algorithms course.
Hum...

> 1) Apple has shown substantial backbone in fighting against the US government when pressed to exploit a phone.

And the phone was exploited anyway. The only thing that was established is that Apple must not be forced to help.

> 2) The other choice is a device made by a Chinese or Korean company with a semi-open operating system made by a US company.

That makes both alike.

> 3) Either device will have a totally closed baseband chip.

This is the one the iPhone got right. On the iPhones, it is insulated by a closed interface.

> 4) Deploying and maintaining secure Linux environment on a Laptop is a full time job that requires expertise journalists don't have.

Ditto for Android, iOS, Windows, OS/2, AIX, GNU/Hurd... And anything else you may think about.

> 5) Open versus closed source is a red herring. Everyone is using pre-compiled binaries.

Open source is a necessary condition for securing against any targeted attack. It's just far from sufficient. Also, pre-compiled binaries can help you.

Anyway, both platforms are pretty much closed.
Nah as a Wisconsite "cheesy" just describes the natural state of food for me ;P
Darn. I was kind of hoping to see separate torrents for each lesson.
This was written by a friend and former classmate of mine. I found it to be very compelling and as opposed to much of the material about Trump, it provides strong advice for interventions to take.
Reason and facts hold no sway over xenophobic ideology. It's purpose is to rally power around the persecution of a scapegoat, just like an archaic religion.
I read go's stdlib implementation more than any other language I have ever worked with. The main reason? Because the implementation is just a click away when you are looking at godoc.
For sure, but they have a limited range of packages installed, and can be tricky to tune towards a specific need.
Maybe algebraic data types would be more suitable.

In Go, you don't have subclassing, so you cannot implement YourClass<T extends SomeAncestor>.
If you hate the idea of coding questions as part of interviews, please consider the other side for a moment.

There are people out there (not you, obviously) who can talk their way into an interview for programming jobs that they simply can't perform. We're talking about no skills whatsoever, apart from the ability to sling buzzwords around enough to impress a recruiter. God only knows how they get their degrees, but they have them.

Simple, straightforward programming questions that aren't already on the Web are like an immune system response to these non-programmers who interview for programming jobs. I'm truly sorry when a real programmer feels insulted when I ask them something like "given the starting and ending times of two calendar appointments, write an expression that's true if they conflict", because it's not their fault that there are people out there who will struggle for 20 minutes thinking about how to solve it before trying something like a doubly-nested loop over all the milliseconds in both intervals, testing for equality.

I am not making this up. It's a real problem. if you can program a digital computer, you have nothing to fear from a good coding interview. And if you have a better way to reliably identify the non-programmers, I'd love to hear it.
Current immigration forms already ask applicants if they are spies. I always found that part hilarious, as if spies don't know how to lie and conceal their pasts?
OK: let's go with: design syntax any damn time you feel like it. Design it first and put finishing touches on it last. Design it while brushing your teeth or going to work, etc.

Don't give up too easily on Lisp. It also has picked up various syntax which has leveraged people's abilities.

As an exmaple, the backquote notation. Without it, it would be very painful to write macros at just one level of expansion. There is tremendous value in being able to do `(a b c (,@foo)) and so on, and it is a character syntax, like infix.

The possibilities for adding notations to Lisp without disturbing its syntax are not exhausted.

In my own Lisp dialect, I have introduced a modicum of notations which make quite a difference:

obj.slot.a.b.c -> (qref obj slot a b c)

obj.bar.(method arg) -> (qref obj bar (method arg))

a..b -> (rcons a b) ;; construct range object

[seq from..to] ;; slice

(fun arg . rest) ;; dot notation with atom serves as apply

(. blah) -> blah ;; dot not preceded by anything reduces to atom

#"word list literal" -> ("word" "list" "literal")

`quasi @literal @{blah[3]}`

All such little things make the "little code" you write daily a lot nicer.

It's understandable that coders might be put off by verbiage like (concatenate 'string ...) or (slot-value obj 'slot) or (aref array index).
Hi,

I have to admit it was mostly because I didn't like the electrum clients.
I just felt wrong to have a program always in the background runnning that permanently uses 250MB RAM.

Also last time I tested it, it ran pretty slow on my machine. But it could be that this has become better.
Studying an algorithms book (like Cracking the Coding Interview or Programming Interviews Exposed) is also an effective way to "hack" the interview. :-P
How We Grew Our Email List to Six Figures
this house is much more cost effective. Here in CA, it's hard to build a house for less than 200$ per square foot (either due to laws or local labor conditions) - not even including land and permit cost.
Many professions have designations that require passing standardized exams, minimum qualified experience requirements, and on-going professional development requirements. Doctors and lawyers are the most prominent such examples, but it is also true of actuaries and licensed professional engineers. Tradespeople, like plumbers and electricians, also have licensing requirements. In finance, there is the CFA designation, along with a number of securities exams and registrations imposed by financial regulators for certain roles. Managers, of course, have the MBA professional degree, which somehow counts as a "professional degree." These systems are beneficial to both employers and employees. As an employee, you gain a certain amount of job security, mobility and collective bargaining power by having a recognized professional designation and an association of peers that can prescribe ethics and safety rules to defend against abuses by management. And as an employer, you can safely hire professionals without an onerous amount of vetting - you know that, for example, your electrician won't burn down your building with faulty wiring because he can't solve an electrician's equivalent "Fizz Buzz."

For whatever reason, the software engineering profession has no such professional organization. Perhaps it is because software engineering is a relatively new field. Many of the examples of functioning professional associations are related to very old professions (e.g. doctors, lawyers, and even actuaries), and some have their roots in the medieval system of guilds and apprenticeships. The MBA and CFA professional designations were established in the 1940s.

Somehow it is difficult to imagine that, at this point, a software engineering professional designation could ever be established.
For their platform to be a recruitment platform, they should fix targeting, suggested hires. The algorithms behind it are in a dark age. Their tools to load jobs and suggest skills are terrible. The ability to customise jobs is woeful and they do not really make it easy to spread jobs into groups.
It worked for me, but the summary is that in the past there has been a place for 'pure' research (which is to say not motivated by a particular financial goal and without restriction). The article argues that the good that has come of that has been greatly in excess of the investment and so "we" should do more investment like that.

I don't disagree, and open ended research is really helpful in furthering the good of the community. It is also not possible to predict which means typical economic forces are not present to keep it funded.

I've wondered sometimes if the lottery proceeds would be better spent on this sort of activity rather than public schools. The reasoning for that is that the public schools don't have any visibility into how much (or how little) they will get from the lottery in a given year so they have a hard time allocating funds for on-going projects, instead doing one-offs like new classrooms or some other self contained project. Whereas if you dumped that money into a grant pile and people could apply for grants out of it for research, that might work better.

Sadly, because (and the article points this out) you can't say definitively "this research is going to give you these benefits in 10 years" you can't really say that you haven't just wasted all the money you spent. And that is where unconstrained research gets killed.
You say that, but it's my understanding that sports-only subscriptions would be far more expensive than they are today because all cable subscribers subsidize things like ESPN.

This is my complaint about unbundling: content creators want to charge the same or more than their offerings cost on cable. Back in the heady days of Big Ugly Dishes (BUDs) the providers were unbundled and far cheaper. The price creep we've seen has been aggregators (cable companies and small dish providers) charging a premium + markup simply because they could. Content providers would like to decouple from cable whilst retaining the premium.

I remain skeptical of someone like Comcast ever unbundling ESPN because they'd lose ESPN customers in droves when the real costs were exposed and most likely they (Comcast) would simply set the new base package price as the old one.
I suspect your advocacy of a PE designation for software and the discussion in this thread are slightly orthogonal. Not that is a bad characteristic, but I want to point out that the question under discussion would be similar to asking if civil engineers should prepare as if they are sitting for their PE exam every single time they start the interviewing process? Should practicing doctors, no matter how accomplished, prepare as if sitting for their boards every single time they start the interviewing process to say, move to a new hospital?

I also suspect that everyone is asking the wrong questions. From the anti algorithm questions for interviews crowd, there is scant acknowledgement that it can't be a blanket policy, as undoubtedly some positions are strongly algorithm-heavy roles. From the pro- crowd, there is scant acknowledgement that by the time you are trying to find new high tech hires through a process that bases an evaluation upon actual interactions that are measured in hours or at best days, you may have already failed. The industry is fitting an interviewing process last majorly overhauled during the industrial age that screens for basic three-R's and attendance skills onto a post-industrial landscape where those skills are barely above cosmic background radiation noise, and demonstrated achievers are as often groomed into hirings through networking over years and decades. Perhaps part of the response to better outcomes to "this high tech interviewing process that takes place in hours or days" isn't "find better questions" or "find a better procedure that still fits in hours or days", but "re-think our premises"? Some kind of PE might fit into that re-think, but the brokenness is so bad that Google has quantified the inability of our conventional processes to yield significantly-better-than-random outcomes, so it might be time to start questioning the entire premise that we can even hire based upon tech interviews in the first place.
'Show HN' implies that.
> But it's a bit strange for an ISP to develop its own hardware

For an ISP that, 5 years ago, was the largest hosting provider on the planet, and is still an ISP in several countries with their own backbones, custom hardware is not unusual.

You don't complain when Google or AWS develop custom hardware, or when Level3 develops custom hardware.

Why would OVH be different?

> and ddos prevention has nothing to do with system management or cloud hosting feature sets.

No, but it's something you complained about, although OVH managed to successfully handle the second-largest DDoS known to date without downtime.

It's very obvious you're not familiar with them at all.
Radio freq's aren't private.

FCC licensing.

Anyone w/ a Radio scanner or RTSDR can just camp out in the woods and identify the old fashioned way.

GPS signals don't work that way.
The article heavily promotes the idea of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J, where both the authors of the article are situated. Richard Feynman rather famously argued against places like that: http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/52/2/dignified.htm

“Nothing happens because there’s not enough real activity and challenge: You’re not in contact with the experimental guys. You don’t have to think how to answer questions from the students. Nothing!”
What do Uber,Volkswagen and Zenefits have in common?They used code to break law
Simple consensus
> A committee of the U.S. Congress found that in 2012 business only provided 6 percent of basic research funding, with the lion’s share — 53 percent — shouldered by the federal government and the remainder coming from universities and foundations.

Yet another instance where "big government" is good for society, despite the bad rap that it gets these days.
Doesn't UWP also try to provide all of that? The only difference I see is that HTML5 comes with a formally defined standard, so it is possible to build more than one implementation by different parties, while UWP is proprietary.

I don't understand why you think providing all those services in UWP is a good thing, but extending HTML5 + the Javascript VM to cover them would be a terrible idea.
New Massive Wave of CryptoLocker Ransomware Infections
> Why not put square rooms into your round building and use the voids for closets or some other purpose?

Because nonrectangular closets are also awkward to use (moreso than putting furnishings directly on curved or non-right-angle walls, the problem with furnishings is that you have to have them custom made for the wall angles or degree of curvature, which is expensive, but they often aren't inconvenient at all in use.)
+1 for Thiking, Fast, and Slow. Definitely a life changing book.
Slightly off-topic, but does Bitwig have a restrictive licensing scheme that makes reinstallation cumbersome? I love FL Studio because it doesn't have a limit on number of installations. As a geek, I change my main machine often, and it's so convenient to install FL Studio if I get an itch to bang something out, and not to worry about how many activations I've used up.

Ableton is a turn-off for this reason. They're actually pretty cool about adding activations if you let them know you're moving machines, but it offends me to ask permission to use something I've already paid for.

If Bitwig (1) works well on Linux, (2) works well as a DAW, and (3) doesn't dick around with activation rules, then I'd be delighted both to support them and to switch my (current) hobby workstation from Windows to Linux.
I fully agree with you on this. If you ask someone to build a trivial CRUD app as part of their interview process, you should probably expect them to hack something together to get the job done. In fact, you should expect that on the job. If you don't have complex needs or high scalability requirements, gluing a bunch of plugins together seems like the appropriate approach.

Who wants to hire an architecture astronaut who hears "design a new ORM system" when someone says "build an app to update customer addresses"?
When you get so far as to consider how you'd get rid of the body, you've probably gone a step past "most people".
As a person who used to be involved in that industry, do you try to protect your data more? Or is it just a losing battle?
I'm curious. How did the DnD books changed you? Was it the books in particular or the roleplaying "activity"? (or, could any other RPG book have the same effect?)
Show HN: Ezcp.io – open source CLI to copy files between 2 machines
> the countries represented aren't majority Muslim by accident - they were picked for a specific reason

These are are the countries where the US is fighting wars against ISIS, and Iran.

I don't support the ban, but I can see the point of being careful about accepting immigrants from areas with active enemy armies.
Robustness and maintainability is as much a product of the minds working on the code as it is the code itself. However, I can say that for me, this was not even a conceivable enterprise, much less one that could be done by one person or, really, a few people, without the approach I have taken, for me at least.

I am interested in this partly because I feel that future hardware will more and more reward code written in this style than in other styles, and I want to make it possible for people, especially non-computer scientists, to learn and produce good code and "think" about problems more rigorously, which, as problem sizes increase, makes this sort of approach important for scaling.

As for speed, one nice, but currently unexplored feature of the compiler as it is written above is that the entire complexity (algorithmic complexity, Big O) is computable, even trivially derived from the code itself, because the compiler is just a string of function compositions on primitives with well known algorithmic complexity. A future feature plan for the compiler is to produce Big-O complexity analysis for code of this sort to help developers spot performance regression points earlier in their code, since the compiler can now assist you in doing so symbolically, and not just with test cases.

I have thought a bit about how easy it would be to compile code like this to the FPGA, and I think there are a lot of possibilities here, but I've not been able to make time to study it completely. My current scope is limited to GPU's and CPU's of the more standard ilk.

Rewriting the kernel of an operating system would be very challenging if you expected good performance on the GPU. GPU's are not designed to make context switching of this sort (as found in Linux) easy, or fast. It's highly likely that you will run into divergence problems, at the very least.

However, people have explored the implementation of operating systems on top of these concepts (see kOS). I expect those to be very practical, and it would be an interesting future project to bootstrap Co-dfns programs to run natively on bare metal.

A more interesting initial idea would be to explore rewriting the base userland in OpenBSD or Ubuntu in something like Co-dfns. This would open up interesting challenges relating to file systems and interacting with GPU's and the file system, but it is at least conceivable that many userland functions would become much easier to write and maintain (maybe) by playing with this approach. However, it would require additional infrastructure support and the like which Co-dfns currently does not have. I imagine the first step would be to identify the core file system APIs that would need to be provided in some reasonable analogue in Co-dfns, and then try implementing the code on the CPU first. I would expect that the code would be simpler, and could potentially better utilize the CPU, but I am not sure you would see fundamental improvements in performance without going way up in scale and increasing computational needs to the point that the speed of the filesystem is not the limiting factor.
Introducing 64-core, 416GB instances with up to 128 [!!!] disks attached
How the Instant Pot cooker developed a cult following
Emoji ZWJ Sequences: Three Letters, Many Possibilities