skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It's not a failure, and it was an improvement over some paradigms. But it's been oversold and parts of it are terrible. It was sold on the promise of reuse but accomplishes it at the expense of understandability and maintainability. As such it's a huge foot gun: it's very easy to solve complex problems with complex solutions, and that's not a feature it's a bug.

The right level of OO is "very little". Some mostly-FP languages like F# are closer to the ideal level of OO than the mostly-OO languages.

We learned a lot from the Java age, and new languages show it (Swift, Rust, ...)
Well I guess if you cannot legally discriminate on a person's looks, they can use this method. Someone said Gattaca, but I think more like syfi's Incorporated

Rich will have designer genes and protected estates, poor will be locked out of any kind social advancement.
The total volume of emitted carbon dioxide, of which land vehicles are a major contributor, is a significant factor in global climate change. An insufficiently specific headline that can be read to imply otherwise is thus misleading.
Although the author is a libertarian, I don't think his views express what libertarians in general think about it.

Libertarians recognize property rights and that property owners should be able to prevent people from "immigrating" to their property.

In practice that could materialize in a number of different laws and costumes, depending on the culture and society.

How that should work in the context of State regulation is a problem for which libertarianism has no solution.
Silent Data Corruption Is Real
Advanced fingerprint test specifically crafted for Tor Browser users
Good thing you didn't optimize prematurely ;)
A class that holds data and has no methods other than get/set is basically a struct. Why even bother with the get/set methods?

You assert that code based on this approach is easier to understand, but you don't give a reason why this is so.

This sounds a lot like a pre-OO approach to organizing code and data, and I don't understand the benefits. To use the tried-and-true example: I want my stack state and code to go together. Why would I want to expose the stack state, and keep the code manipulating it separate?
infrastructure projects in the US tend to be really expensive and prone to cost explosions. There are a number of reasons for this- for example, the design of the terminal is absurdly overly done for what it needs to be. Another issue is regulations- we tend to build things to an absurd level of regulations. ANother issue can be environmental restrictions (these added significantly to the cost of extending BART to SFO), which are often used as obstructions to development in the Bay Area.
I've started using email where possible. As long as they only send me new articles I'm happy. The second they spam me, I don't read them anymore. Unfortunately not everywhere offers it.
If you're going to ask this question, then you might want also ask how would they had fared had Cuba and USSR succeeded in those places, it's not as though we don't have people fleeing post-USSR countries like Cuba, Georgia and Russia and Ukraine, etc.

And how much is Russia taking in for their past internationalist activities?

I think the answer in the current world political context should be obvious if we consider Singapore. What would happen if they just opened the doors and let anyone who wanted to go in, go in (IN, ID, PH, MY, BD, as well as Pan-EU)?
Don't worry, the public is perfectly competent to draw relevant conclusions from that information too.
not so much that it "should" be as that the Constitution mandates it be
Or we could just castrate them and not have to worry about it anymore.
Russian Espionage Piggybacks on a Cybercriminal’s Hacking
It'll also be pretty hard to colonize Mars when SpaceX and Florida no longer exist.
Looks like a combination of false and misleading. Perusing Wikipedia's list of gases:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Global_warming_...

The only listed oxides are CO2 and N2O. N2O does indeed have much greater potential than CO2, but its concentration in the atmosphere is only 270ppb, which is 20% over preindustrial levels, so its overall contribution is negligible.
And let's not forget all the cities in the US that send their homeless to CA, usually to SF or Berkeley, where the police and citizens are more tolerant than most places.

I befriended a homeless guy I saw every day walking to/from work. He never asked for money. I struck up a conversation, offered to buy him food and we talked for months, every few days (when I would sometimes buy him food). He had been a machinist in PA, got laid off, and got to N CA somehow. The weather made it easier to live outside, year round. I pushed him to get an ID, which is needed for pretty much anything, and he did. I haven't seen him in a couple of months, so I hope he got into a shelter.

So, the weather and tolerance is a big reason people come to CA when they are homeless or near homeless.
I'm not sure exactly what you are arguing for here, so please correct me if I'm wrong. You seem to to saying that the middle class in Mexico are not the same as middle class in the US because their wealth + income would not be regarded as middle class by US standards.

I don't think that is a good argument, since once they move to the US they would be making middle class wages in the US, since they have the relevant skills to be employed in middle class jobs.
Release notes for Retroshare 0.6.2
So no more whiteboard interviews? Just send us a blood sample to make sure you match the profile we're looking for?
For Linux systems in (heavy) interactive use early-oom is a must have, pretty much regardless of how much memory you have.
No, but you can call yourself Data Scientist, I hear they make big bucks what with the big data and analysis and stuff.
> Just as there's nothing wrong with e.g. age-based discrimination,

Sure there is, are you familiar with the Age Discrimination in Emloyment Act of 1967 [1]?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_Discrimination_in_Employ...
I had a job years ago that involved software and (small) vendor-provided gear for ships and getting this stuff out deployed to vessels was a slow and painful logistical nightmare. 'Update your ships' sounds about a million times worse so we'll probably be reading more of these articles for a while.
> You are a landowner only in as much as the state guarantees your right to the land, or (the only other alternative) as much as you can protect and enforce your rights to your land.

You think you are so clever to come up with this argument that you imagine will end the discussion, isn't it?

In the following passages you recognize that it is difficult to know who is the "right" owner of something, but before you were saying that the State de facto owns everything. So what is it?
Yep. It suggests bias in the methods used to collect and publish data.

This is perfectly rational. Do you trust political polling from pollsters with party affiliation? I hope not.
A New Lab-Built Fungus Eats Sugar and Burps Out Drugs
I'm saying that the existence of nations doesn't demonstrate the legitimacy of nations.
>Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like much short of near colonization will fix these places on any reasonable timescale. Simply sending money/aid programs might alleviate a bit but an outside solution is needed to properly coordinate/manage resources.

This view is simply ignorant of history.

The US doesn't need to colonize countries to "manage resources" for them in a benevolent way. The first thing it needs to do is stop actively sabotaging them and their economies. Interestingly, "benevolent" management of resources that "primitives" mishandle has been a justification for nearly all colonization programs in the past few centuries, except perhaps what the Belgians did in the Congo.

Economic sanctions against countries in Latin America, purely for ideological and political reasons, as well as massive American agriculture subsidies, have devastating effects on their economies.

This is, of course, when they aren't straight up invaded or sabotaged by America.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Pana...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contras

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominican_Civil_War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Grenada
I'm developing a productivity app on an Apple WatchOS3, using STT, TTS, and taptic engine. Turns out that applying the same limited interaction area on the iPhone eliminates the need for "reachability".

How about you?
To be fair, the MM primitives that we have today are the same we had in 1979, while the capabilities of the hardware evolved, and the actual needs evolved, too.

For example, caching. It's essentially impossible to do caching at the application layer right unless your cache is also persistent with no durability or consistency needs whatsoever and can be mmaped (and you don't mind total I/O trashage). The persistence part also implies that you must be able to store the entire cache somewhere.

What an application would want here is a mechanism to allocate cache memory that the kernel can throw away, if need be, and notify the application of that, so that the app can adjust. That's not impossible to do, it's just tricky - and beyond POSIX.
I think a lot (not saying all/most) of these comments can be summed up as:

No, Software Engineers are not engineers on a technical level but they do the work of engineers[1] and the fact the industry has not caught up doesn't make what they do any less engineering.

[1] They are using math to solve real world problems that have billions of dollars and in many cases lives depending on them.

For one, I am sick of being called "not an engineer" when I bear more responsibility in dollars and livelihoods and use math more extensively in my job than most mechanical and electrical engineers I graduated with. In college I took all the same courses as the "real engineers"... I'm only a few credits shy of an Electrical Engineering degree. The "technician" majors took different courses. Less calculus, less physics, etc.

Heck, my stuff gets attacked by hackers on a daily basis. Show me something a civil engineer built where they need to worry about the level of security needed to protect against something like that. No one blames the civil engineer because they didn't explosion proof the road.

In fact a lot of the firmware I have seen Electrical Engineers write is terribly insecure and poorly written. Stuff a well trained Software Engineer would feel embarrassed about.

No, we are not legally engineers. But we should be.
Google's AMP visitor stats bug: either sneakily clever or disturbingly dumb
These figures are similar from 2009: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057%2Fpt.2009.5 from Population Trends March 2009, Volume 135, Issue 1, pp 20–28 by Amy Ellis Office for National Statistics.

What figures do you believe are accurate?
Landowners must give up? What? If given the opportunity 90% would give up right now.

The part that doesn't want to give up their perpetual source of almost free income is the State, not landowners.
Think about it this way. If New York City is so awesome (and it's pretty awesome) why doesn't everyone in America move there?

There's plenty of reasons the population of NYC isn't 300M. The reality is that people are tied to their communities for many different reasons. Language, culture, family, friends, jobs. These aren't unique to the first world. Sure many would come, but many more would stay, and these things reach equilibrium.

One thing is certain, there'd be a much bigger labor pool and a more dynamic economy, IMO.
My guess would be that the other distillate fractions from each barrel have been sold for a lot more.
An Encyclopedic Treatment of Type Design, Typefaces and Fonts
> I wonder what traits we'll program for? Intelligence, maybe, but that's tough to manage and I'd guess that without a complete understanding you'd get a lot of madness.

That's an understatement that belies human laziness. The real predictor of success, almost no matter how you define success, is about the effort you put in. Good genetics is usually a micro-optimization on effort expended. But if you ever told people that they were genetically Destined™ or Guaranteed™ to succeed, that's precisely what will cause them to discredit effort, sit back on their laurels, and wait for the not-so-inevitable money to start rolling in. When it doesn't, their failure will breed resentment and conflict.

> I wonder if people would really want that?

People want to be at the intersection of attractive and unique. Attractive is more or less easy to control for - genes for attractive figures, full heads of hair, clear skin, no disabilities. Unique is far more difficult, and would only get more difficult if sizable pluralities or majorities of parents started to select on the same Recommended™ or Best Choice™ genes, and generations start to look like cookie cutter clones of each other. Most probably, you'd end up with some classic tragedy of the commons, and the government would have to step in to regulate what would end up being a finite resource (being genetically unique, with a genetic monoculture being especially dangerous considering the Darwinian requirement for genetic diversity to promote survival) if the market's natural price pressures didn't self-correct. And if you think the rich and powerful will allow the government to allow anybody but their children to have the beauty and desirable qualities which will keep them at the head of their parents' empires, well, I have a history book on feudalism to sell you.
Not if they're all in the normal direction.
The problem with your argument is that it can be applied to births as well; if we allow mentally disabled people to be born, could we not then argue that the benefit is one sided and not the society they're born into?

Basically, what you're arguing is that a person's right to pursuit of happiness is lower than a society's right to flourish. And, also, that the society has the right to choose what types of people are undesirable (by criteria that goes beyond "do you follow the law", because merit and culture includes so much more).
The short answer is it turns out to be a hard thing to do.

Right off the bat your choices are limited because many sales roles benefit from being close to customers. You may be limited to local and have no option to leverage hundreds of millions of people outside the country like tech can.

Secondly, they're expensive. The stars can make double what a top architect makes. You might think, no problem it's just x% on what they sell and we all benefit. Then the problem becomes why should they join your company now if you don't already have a lucrative pipeline to maintain and expand? To get around this some companies will pay fixed cash rate until commissions ramp up, but often that's hard to do for a startup.

Also salespeople tend to care less about how cool the technology is. It does matter somewhat, it's better to be selling software than cigarettes. However it would be common for a tech star to turn down a cobol job even for a 30% raise, whereas I estimate that's less true on the sales side.
Ethics can be a tough thing, and it can take more than just a spine to refuse unethical work. Identifying something as being unethical in the first place can be a challenge for someone new to a discipline. Having a professional community that explicitly teaches and tests you about their Code of Ethics gives you a framework and support network to help you with those decisions. It's also kind of a cultural thing. Having transitioned from chemical engineering to artificial intelligence, I'm amazed at the different cultures regarding ethics. Not having an entity responsible for defining the code of ethics in my new discipline, and the lack of community around it, has made it much more difficult to discuss and challenge the ethical decisions we make. Most of the time, when I bring up ethical discussions, my classmates and professors respond with "that's not our responsibility". When I ask whose responsibility it is, the answer is always "someone else's".
> Why is the refined product cheaper than the raw product?

Because bunker fuel is the absolute waste that remains after the refinery distills all the valuable lighter fuel components (from pretty heavy kerosene all up the way to gasoline and even lighter).

The stuff basically has no other use except as fuel for tankers... what refineries are doing here is, basically, selling waste they'd otherwise have to spend money to get rid of it. (On a sidenote, I can't imagine how one could get rid of bunker fuel except pumping it back where it came from)
Publishing this in The Guardian, what beautiful irony
I think it's basically a waste product from refining which happens to find some use. It's like how slag is cheaper per ton than the ore it comes from.
Yeah, there are probably degrees of purity. With inheritance, I can at least see how it tries to respect the OO paradigm, by giving you ways to extend without breaking some of the core concepts like encapsulation.

While, on the other end, immutability fundamentally undermines the very premise of OO, which is to model the domain as state and behavior vs treating objects as data wrappers to be manipulated externally.
>1. Individuals have a prima facie right to immigrate (that is, a right not to be prevented from immigrating). This is because:
a. Individuals have a prima facie right to be free from harmful coercion.
b. Immigration restrictions are harmful and coercive.
2. The prima facie right to immigrate is not overridden. In particular:
a. It is not overridden because of immigrants’ effects on the labor market.
b. It is not overridden because of the fiscal burden of providing social services to immigrants.
c. It is not overridden because of the state’s special obligations to its citizens in general, nor its special obligations to its poorest citizens.
d. It is not overridden because of the threat immigrants pose to the nation’s culture.
3. Therefore, immigration restrictions are wrongful rights-violations.

The paper makes absolutely no sense as it is.

First of all, there are no "prima facie" rights. Even the declaration of human rights is about declaring and enforcing man made rights, not prima facie rights that everyone automatically has in nature. Animals in nature have no rights (not in the sense that we can do anything to them: in the sense that there are no rights between them: one animal can do anything it likes to another, if it has the power to do so).

But, even accepting the notion, the conclusions are not coherent with the whole idea.

Immigration presupposes nations (the places where you immigrate to).

First, because else it's just movement (e.g. from California to Texas), not immigration.

And second, because what prospective immigrants want is to exchange one nations prospects (stability, economy, government, laws, jobs, culture, opportunities) for another's. If there were two different countries with the exact same prospects in all those areas, immigration between them would not make any sense (except in changing landscape, e.g. from snow to sunshine -- but that's seldom the reason people leave their country, friends and families for).

But "free boundless immigration as a fundamental right" means no nations, just a huge global state. What would there be to constitute a nation (with separate laws, government, economy, etc) if anybody can come in and leave at anytime for greener pastures?
After reading many mental gymnastics excercises of varying creativity in this thread that try to explain why the supplemental poverty measure is irrelevant and/or misleading, I'd like to know, how would you define a measure for poverty that's both objective and gives a realistic account of the quality of life in the measured area?
I've been studying about C++ lately. It has proven to be a lot harder to learn than PHP, JavaScript, Java, C# and Haskell. It's one of the most powerful and widely used languages around however, so calling it a failure seems rather unfair.
There are a lot of index funds (especially ETFs) domiciled in EU countries that buy US stocks. Here is a list of EU-domiciled US stock market ETFs sorted by size:

https://www.justetf.com/uk/find-etf.html?groupField=none&sor...

You can (and should) generally buy these using a local broker in the country you live in. For tax reasons it's generally better to buy a EU-domiciled fund instead of a US-based one, but that depends on the country you live in. Here in Germany buying a US-domiciled Vanguard fund would be tax hell, but the Irish ETFs are usually very good for the US stock market.
No, I don't vote, and my predictions don't imply endorsement. All politicians suck, even those who aren't (or weren't) politicians.

You're good at lying to yourself, too. Bush and Gore weren't the same. Clinton and Trump weren't the same, either. Had Gore won, we'd literally live in a different world. The Middle East might not be as stable as the US, but it would be vastly more stable than it is now.

And, looking back in 4 years, I'm pretty sure the world will be very different than it would be had Clinton gotten elected.

Between you types (the apathetic) and the Trump voters, we are so fucked.
“Whatever the chain of events is, the chain begins before birth,” said James M. Cantor, a University of Toronto professor of psychiatry whose research team has made a series of startling correlations finding that pedophiles are likely to share physical attributes, such as slightly lower IQs, shorter body height, left-handedness and less brain tissue.[1]

See, we don't even need genetic tests. Just don't hire left-handers under 5'8" and we'll be okay. And remember: blacks are more likely to be criminals and Jews have big noses.[2]

[1] http://www.alternet.org/are-some-men-born-pedophiles-new-sci...

[2] I know it's hard to tell on the internet, but this is sarcasm. Please keep in mind Poe's Law[3] and take a deep breath.

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law
Is that because bunker fuel is (more or less) the remainder after the lighter components have been distilled out?
As I understand, the 60 weren't against the spirit of the bill, but voted against for potential constitutional challenges.
> immutability and OO are diametrically opposed concepts.

Why do you say that? It is completely reasonable to define objects whose state is fixed at creation, hide a representation, and have methods that implement some abstraction. E.g., strings, complex numbers, points in a space, and possibly even more complex things like sets. All the advantages of OO apply, even for objects whose interface does not provide a way to mutate the object.
> TCP/IP / SSL / SMTP / HTTP

Were all invented long ago and were all first of their kind. Creating a new standard when there are no wide spread alternatives is easy, doing the same where everyone is already invested is hard. E.g. that's why payment systems suck universally.
But you think Channel 4 is better when it comes to academic honesty and not biasing their polls?
Who do you know who's genuinely not political? People have biases all over the place. They're not going to disappear - understand them, acknowledge them, interpret them. Don't just shrug your shoulders and say "nah I don't like that". They're not publishing opinion pieces - it's research.
I love it and will religiously follow through the courses
Molecules don't block vs retain heat. They vibrate at a given frequency given the energy flow.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
Sadly a lot of SF movies are reaching reality, and it doesn't feel that good.