skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> If you truly want to sell or buy no matter the price, then sure, use a market order.

Which is why it makes sense in the specific case of settling expired margin trades, where you have a binding commitment to return shares (buying them as necessary) no matter the price.

I agree completely with the idea that market orders are generally to be avoided, but it's inherent to the entire concept of selling on margin.
>We jumped from one bad standard format to another bad standard format.

So, what do or would [1] you consider a good format. Asking because I'm interested in data formats. They are inputs for my xtopdf toolkit, plus I'm generally interested in data munging and have done it a good amount.

[1] "do" for existing ones, "would" for non-existent ones.
Yes, it does interrupt them, but if the kernel decides to keep the same thread there's no context switch. (In other words, there's a penalty, but it is much smaller.)

Your conclusion is correct. By creating more CPU hungry threads than you have CPUs you will reduce the total throughput of the computer.
> The US Patent office in particular decided many years ago that they simply weren't qualified to review all patents and just left it to the courts to deal with the fallout.

Right... but then, in the courts, an issued patent has a presumption of validity! This is arguably the biggest problem. I believe that before a patent can be used in litigation, the patentee should have to show its validity in more depth than the PTO requires, including objective evidence of nonobviousness [0].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_v._John_Deere_Co.#The_P...
> Stuff on the web should just work on all browsers. How did we get to this point, seriously?

This isn't any different from the compatibility issues across desktop operating systems. You wouldn't expect a mac desktop app binary to "just work" when double-clicked on a Windows OS.

I know, the web supposedly has a standard that should make this argument null, but the fact is browsers are basically being used as though they're little mini-operating systems by both consumers and developers. This kind of fragmentation has historically been just something that happens as each "operating environment"'s maintainers implement their own flavor of whatever, standards be damned.

And even with a completely coherent, well-formed standard, browsers will have (sometimes subtly) different behaviors between operating system implementations that will make 100% standards compliance forever be relegated to "nice to have" status.
I had a boss who had a domain stolen from him too and never got it back. I realize its handy to be able to easily move registrars whenever you want but can we have it more difficult? Eg it would be nice if a registrar would only transfer a domain if it gets a signed letter which it follows up with a phone call then a 3 month delay. With the cut throat competition out there I'd have thought this would be available by now.

After the loss I moved my own domains to google domains which at least has 2fa to access.
> When the choice is between proprietary apps or DRM for multimedia content inside open web environment

Why? That puts the cost of DRM on everyone except the ones who want to freeload on our open tech to take our freedom away.

And that's ass backwards.

You want non-free and closed? Cool deal. Go build it yourself.
I'm reminded of my old boss's words when I worked as an EE at MIT Lincoln Lab. Whenever someone (self included) distinguished between the meaning of decibel on a signal's amplitude or power, he'd deadpan :

"A decibel is a decibel is a decibel".

Eg, a filter that attenuates a certain frequency by 24 dB is well defined. Regardless of whether you're interested in the resulting voltage or power of the output signal.

Of course for absolute terms a reference like dBm is used.
You probably can't, honestly.

My apartment, on a weekly basis, gets mail to roughly 3-5 previous inhabitants. As in, exact same address, etc.

Sometimes even bills from insurance companies or other important mail.

I think when you move you're supposed to notify USPS to forward mail to your new address (probably also inform important mailers of the move as well) but from what I've seen they don't propagate the address changes very well.

I mean, sure, those previous inhabitants may not have notified USPS at all, but I find that hard to believe.
systems that are designed as distributed datastores run as managed, hosted services on MASSIVE cloud datacenters...yea those will scale.

if you're trying to keep your hosting overhead down though none of those is available (except S3 I suppose, which is super cheap, but also not really a datastore solution) but a basic app server running MySQL (or similar) is. now, I'm not saying anybody should expect scaling for free. I'm just saying you're comparing apples to oranges here.

The apples to apples comparison is basic app server running MySQL vs. basic app server running MongoDB. the myth is that the MongoDB instance inherently scales better than the MySQL instance. it doesn't, particularly. it has better write performance, but not much else that gives it better scalability.

and the real point of the article is to combat some of the magical thinking that has lead to many bad decisions from misinformed developers who heard a rumor that a NoSQL datastore has orders of magnitude better performance characteristics than an RDBMS.
I use this setup on a Windows machine, not a VM. Works very fine here.
Taking a look at Gitaly & the conversations around it, I don't see much in the way of consensus. Are you using Redis for the distributed lock or is this still a centralized system?

My query being you can effectively use the native pre-receive hooks & wrap the git shell to allow consensus without needing to replace git with an RPC system like Gitaly.
Why do you really need to do template metaprogramming?

Generally that is not required even in performance sensitive code. Perhaps a few conditionals a'la enable_if or direct use of SFINAE... but most everything else, not really.
That's what arrays are for. You can also do structure packing using implementation-specific tricks. SBCL's SB-ALIEN package has a nice interface for doing this: http://www.sbcl.org/manual/#Foreign-Types

A really cool example of SB-ALIEN in action is jiyunomegami's native type extensions for the Vacietis C-to-CL transpiler: https://github.com/jiyunomegami/Vacietis/commits/master (commits 5504079d63eb2745f6b8ef7ec1cf9bb3151994eb onward)
Agreed. However, most large software companies have terrible customer support. Google customer support is legendary...in a bad way.

I don't think anyone has figured out how to scale this correctly.
Interesting theory, however, a machine cannot own property, only a person can. If someone dies without heirs, as in the article's example, the property escheats (transfers) to the state. If property is lost or abandoned, someone new can claim ownership to it. So, even if a machine could "own" an enterprise, someone else could claim ownership to the machine.

An enterprise can be autonomous, for instance with a blockchain. But to be legally recognizable, it would still need someone to interface with meatspace. Even a corporation has an Agent for Service of Process, a real person to interact with the real world of living persons.
Heck, I'm pretty sure you can open a forex trade account with a retail broker for as little as $25 if you're fine trading nanolots and making fractions of a penny every trade.
Rubbish. It is exactly through their ability to "soldier on" in spite of intense and sometimes challenging surroundings that high-performing employees distinguish themselves as such.

And on top of this, remember that the other way your best performers distinguish themselves is in the fact that they most definitely are not complainers. So if any of your employees start yapping about your proposed move to an open plan environment (or even have the temerity to suggest that if you are going to have an open plan environment, people at least "try to keep down their voice down a bit"), then congratulations -- you've just identified an employee that's definitely not right for your organization, and will likely because more trouble and distraction for your team down the road -- for as long as you keep them on board, that is.†

† Of course I'm being facetious. But this but a slightly cheeky paraphrase of the exact logic I've actually had used on me, to my face, to justify not just the hyperdense, pack-em-in-like-it's-veal-slaughtering-pen office plans which are apparently a peak popularity, these days -- but a whole range of obnoxious environmental factors --- e.g. loud TVs, loud muzack (or any TV or muzack in "the pen", for that matter); or just loud, gratuitously chatty co-workers -- in plenty of environments I've had the misfortune of being stuck in. Until I realized I just wasn't "a fit" for these places, that is.
Houses get broken into even when they have locks, so why do you keep a lock on your house?
Maybe you remembered a very vivid dream? The lack of purchase history is a tell that it probably didn't actually happen.
Do you remember the HN story about the DoJ letter to UCB? Did you read the letter? There is significant leeway in which cases the DoJ pursues, and in how the DoJ pursues and investigates cases. In no way was the DoJ's finding (i.e. threat of legal action, fines, etc.) a given. It also seems obvious that UCB could have claimed that to address the complaint would have been cost-prohibitive (which the DoJ letter listed as a possible defense), yet they didn't attempt to do so.

Also, this action was only pursued after two professors at a university for the deaf filed an official complaint with the DoJ. Isn't it bizarre that two professors at an institute of higher-learning filed a complaint to have educational resources, which were freely available to the entire world, deleted?

> not a "product" of Obama's DOJ other than the expectation that the DOJ enforce the laws of the United States.

A bizarre statement, considering how the Obama administration and DoJ simply declined to enforce laws they didn't like.
I would add that there will always remain someone--the owner of the machine--who acts as the creative force powering his business innovation. This master puppeteer is the one who will be paying taxes, until we teach machines to be creative and take business decisions based on what the algorithm has just dreamt.
Populism: The Phenomenon (Bridgewater Daily Report) [pdf]
This whole situation is ridiculous. I am working in a university and I have my own office. Turns out that employees are by far the most expensive part about doing research in computer science, and the cost of giving everyone their own office is easily offset by the (noticable) increase in productivity.

Everyone I know who went on to an industry position is working in an open plan office... and it is not unusual to hear stories about people putting in a few days of home office to get some actual work done.

This is obviously anecdotal, but based on other responses in this thread and elsewhere there is more than enough evidence to justify doing a real study. It is not difficult to measure changes in productivity over time accross a sufficiently large population and the amount of money being spent on engineers means that even a marginal increase in productivity will be worth the cost.
One of the high level goals I set for this year is scaling up to projects that consist of more than a single repository.

That means CI that spans multiple projects [0], higher abstraction of issue management [1], formal relationships between issues [2] and more.

Having a global wiki or higher level wiki should also be part of that [3], I think.

[0]: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/issues/933

[1]: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/issues/928

[2]: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/4058

[3]: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/4037
I'm pretty sure it could wait until I got home. If it was that urgent I doubt if they'd have just sent it as a letter.
There is a third way, nix and NixOS.
This is like some fun bit of backstory from Charles Stross' novel ACCELERANDO[1].

1. http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/fiction/accelera...
>But this network has a an order-of-magnitude larger theoretical cell capacity

Does it? It seems like they just have more available spectrum. 4x4 MIMO and 64bitQAM help, but not an order of magnitude in practice.
Correct, just saying it's related. Also, I am not a medical doctor.
The hunt for Russia's most notorious hacker
> > 4. Have antivirus software on your computer

> Only use Windows defender, which is what the security community recommends.

Just don't use windows.
Whom should I trust?
Try https://appear.in . I have no affiliation, I just find the idea of not logging in awesome.
Except that Notepad++ is running in wine - which much as I think wine is awesome is not perfect. You don't know if a pathological case (e.g. the result for Rehighlight test) is Notepad++ or wine.
What's your beef with fat?
If everyone had an open office, then very few would use the open space area.

Assume you mean private office. Isn't that a pretty compelling argument that the majority don't see big advantages to open plan?
Yeah, that's the point. Everyone tries to re-invent 2FA or use SMS, both of which are bad for the end user. Even 2FA companies like Duo use some non-standard protocol which only their client can implement.
JSON is (heavily used by people as) an OSI layer 6 encoding—a "presentation layer."

Other examples of presentation-layer encodings: ASN.1's encodings [DER, XER]; YAML; the Erlang External Term Format.

These encodings take a set of native types, and represent them with canonical encoded/serialized forms. They don't have to allow for faithful bijective encoding of application or domain types (although YAML does), but they are expected to be able to represent any reasonably-common "part of the runtime" scalar or container-ADT type which you might want to use to build your domain types out of.

Presentation-layer protocols are the basis of RPC-like protocols like REST or SOAP: you define an application-level message encoding to give semantic meaning (i.e. an application-level type) to terms which have passed through an RPC channel, where those terms arrive in your runtime after RPC decoding with types guaranteed by the presentation-layer protocol you've chosen.

JSON is very limited as a presentation-layer protocol, because it guarantees representations for very few types, and many types that are needed to effectively implement RPC-like protocols are not in that small set. This is recognized by some, as there have been a good few attempts to define a presentation-layer encoding "on top of" JSON rather than just using JSON itself... but almost everybody ignores these [fine] layer-6 encodings in favor of continuing to create "JSON APIs" (i.e. layer-7 protocols that specify JSON itself as their layer-6 carrier.)

The creators of these JSON APIs then find themselves forced to specify how their particular API represents {binaries, datetimes, sets, strict maps, exceptions, UUIDs, ...}—in other words, to define their own one-off layer-6 encoding atop JSON. And the authors of clients for these APIs find themselves forced to write their own logic to parse and generate representations fitting these specifications—even though they're almost always exactly the same choices as every other API creator made.

Choosing a different, richer layer-6 encoding allows both the API creator, and the client authors, to just avoid all that work. Instead, the people who write tooling conforming to the standard for each runtime will do that work, once, and all the API designers and API-client implementors get to benefit by relying on that tooling. Which is rather the point of a standard.
If you don't care about +/-5% but do care about wider swings, you should be issuing a limit order 5% on the unfavorable side of the current bid or ask (if you are selling or buying, respectively) rather than a market order.

You should almost never use market orders, and (as your own justification does) most uses of them bake in assumptions about the likely movement of the market that can be more guaranteed, rather than hoped for probabilistically, with an appropriate limit order.
Yaakuro Shows Off SteamVR on Unreal Engine 4 Using Vulkan on Linux
Charles Stross addressed this concept tangentially in his fiction novel "Accelerando", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerando.

Joan D. Vinge also addressed AI owned corporations in her "Cat" series, https://www.goodreads.com/series/40790-cat.

I think Ethereum, XDI, and other attempts at smart contract technologies are laying the foundation for this now, https://www.ethereum.org/ether. So are new automated digital identity technologies such as Sovrin, https://github.com/WebOfTrustInfo/rebooting-the-web-of-trust....

I also think that the need for liability and taxes will drive incorporating the concept of an intelligent software agent as a legal corporate entity, such that the assets of that entity are at risk from liability lawsuits, that profits are taxed, and that the fiduciary responsibilities of such an entity are defined. I think the author does not distinguish between self-owning and self-directed, the two do not necessarily go hand in hand.

It's a whole new field of law, and business, and should be an interesting thing to be a part of and/or observe. Usual caveat applies, IANAL and TINLA (This is not legal advice).
Because the studios are the ones demanding DRM. I was under the impression that netflix original content is actually far more relaxed on restrictions (I don't recall where I heard this). They don't want DRM necessarily, but if they say "DRM is not an option" then the change of getting major studios on board is 0.

And even if you take netflix original content out of the picture, that applies. their "viable business" is "stream other people's content" and "other people" have to agree to that, and won't without DRM.
> Any bugs on non-supported browsers would never get reported back to our team, so we'd never hear about them.

Wouldn't this filter out a lot of legitimate bugs that just happened to be discovered first on an unsupported browser?
Google Spreadsheet that auto-tweets your archives
As an (aspirant) programming language theorist, we have a really great advantage in this field: advances in the field of prog lang have a natural distillation process: getting into a "real" programming language.

And it's great, it means I can toy with features and consider "what could I do if it was in a real language ?". Also, we can observe idioms and usage that gets developed when some advanced feature start being used by "normal" programmers.

Computer science, in general, does have the advantage that the distance to applications is quite often much shorter than math, which forces part of this distillation process to proceed a bit quicker.
On the other hand, the formalization is highly non-uniform, due to how young it is as a science.
>Nexium illustrates the drug makers’ strategy. Many chemicals come in two versions, each a mirror image of the other: an L-isomer and an R-isomer. (The “L” is for left, the “R” is for right.) Nexium’s predecessor Prilosec is a mixture of both isomers. When Prilosec’s patent expired in 2001, the drug maker was ready with Nexium, which contains only the L-isomer.

And yet, prilosec is an OTC medication which anyone can buy for about 10 dollars, so who gives a shit. So what if a reformulation leads to a new patented product if the old formulation becomes a generic and is readily available? Also, reformulating to reduce dosage requirements to improve adherence is a legitimate product improvement so I don't see why it's problematic at all to seek another patent.

>An internal National Institutes of Health (NIH) document, obtained by Public Citizen through the Freedom of Information Act, shows how crucial taxpayer-funded research is to top-selling drugs. According to the NIH, taxpayer-funded scientists conducted 55 percent of the research projects that led to the discovery and development of the top five selling drugs in 1995. (See Section III)

Yup. I'm a huge proponent of basic research and I think we can do more of it. But saying basic research "leads to" drugs is also misleading. Basic research typically only establishes that a compound has basic efficacy in a cell model or an animal model. There's a lot more work that needs to be done to validate that the compound works in a human.

> American citizens alone bear the cost of R&D for the world because every other country sets price ceilings?

Yes, pretty much. We subsidize drug development for much of the world.

> Also, I'll just once again point out that our drug development industry is not struggling! It's doing great right now, they spend lots of money on dividends and stock buybacks and advertising and still make fantastic profits. They're fine.

The whole stock market is doing great right now. By this logic everyone should drop the price on all goods because their stock prices are going up.
Given the amount of uber hating world wide lately why aren't their competitors gaining traction? 'Grab'bed a cab in KL - same deal as uber but cash first - wouldn't know about it otherwise - so uber? who cares?
While it's a solution, it's not a simple one. Developers don't have this luxury. Choosing an OS to support means supporting all the APIs and possible ecosystem that comes with it.
GDAX processes orders one at a time (linearizable). So it's not a huge concern since you trade directly on the exchange.
what's going on at uber is the surfacing of internal problems due to culture and management. this isn't really a structural issue in their core business (they have those too, but shitty company culture isn't an example of it), and I'm having a hard time seeing how the fate of uber is anything besides management shakeup and then keep-calm-and-carry-on.

what does happen if a unicorn startup fails though? I dunno. this is a risky business isn't it? some investors lose money and a bunch of former employees find new jobs. ::shrug:: life goes on. I'm having a hard time buying into any notion of fear contagion. this isn't like the dot com bubble.
IIRC I remember seeing something in a forum that it is widevine, and that it had already worked in FF since whichever release included it (1-3 releases ago) if the UA was spoofed, but this could be somone's failed test and a bad memory..
You are right, but I guess Microsoft is somewhat biased towards their own products (Windows in this case).
Perhaps one day I'll learn to read. Sorry 'bout that.
Basically it compiles down to regular MAGIC, IIRC.
That is crazy. I thought that rooting your Android is totally legal. How can that be legal, but refilling ink cartridges isn't?
> and that the "bel" unit was devised as an afterthought to fit the SI prefix.

It's named after Alexander Graham Bell, in 1928 at Bell Labs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decibel#History (Yes I worked there, it was part of indoctrination training... :)

> because "deci" means 10.

Really, it means 1/10. ("Deca" is 10.)
I'm not an expert on the difference, but informally, I'd say that the difference is this: a "document" will have more and/or larger passages of text, and the fields are mainly meant as metadata to add meaning to it. A good example would be a real document like a book - when stored in an XML file, a lot of the content would be the text of the book, and you would have some XML elements like <book>, <chapter>, <section>, <TOC>, etc. But for "data", a good example would be an invoice or a purchase order or a part record - while they do have text, it will be mainly in the form of structured fields (typically not too long, unlike a chapter or section in a book), which can again be stored in XML elements. And this is where the siblings and others are arguing about - which (XML or JSON) is a better format for what type - document or data.
I did several research projects on performance bugs during my phd. https://songlh.github.io/
CIA's first tweet was great:

"We can neither confirm nor deny that this is our first tweet."
The Essence of Information