skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The COMBINING RIGHT ARROW ABOVE combination on that second line rendered both the letter and the arrow as two separate squares, on macOS, in fully-updated Chrome.

It maybe 2017, but this doesn't quite work yet. Not to mention how it falls apart as soon as I want some _clever_ typesetting. Don't get me wrong: I think we can do better than TeX, and in a lot of cases common characters like e.g. Greek characters might be fine, but, uh, we aren't there yet.
On the other hand: China.
You must not work in an organization that insists on installing security software for you. If I have >2w uptime on my machine I generally have to restart for some reason or other. It's like people have forgotten that computers can and should have more uptime than that.

A faulty update from one of our security software vendors caused a once-per-hour kernel panic and forced reboot for a day or two. It was really nice.

(Obviously none of this is the fault of OSX or Apple but I would kill for 2.5m of uptime on my work laptop).
What If We Taught Argument in Every Class?
The satire was fantastic, I loved it. I think humour is very subjective.
I'd never heard of this "Friends castmembers" video, so I did a bit of YouTubing... I have no words (nearly an hour long, and I think there's a part-two): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGYcNcFhctc

This led me to a few other videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2owaKucyU1Y

Sigh. The 90s.
When I was younger I used to work a lot of extra hours because I enjoyed the work.

Now not so much, but still get enthused about things from time to time and find myself still at work at 8:00pm not even aware of what time it is.
So you either don't buy much online, buy only from one place (that can provide a nice end of year report), or hire a bookkeeper to keep track of it, because the burden of calculating use tax otherwise would be extremely high.
I think your only chance is buying a USB camera and connecting it to your own local storage.

"IP Camera" almost certainly means insecure camera.
On the other hand no one's remotely hacked the Nest Thermostat, so their own code was fine, dangers of acquiring code and then not auditing it.

Seeing as you could just jam all wifi anyway, not that great a problem
Sorry, many soldiers are murderers. There's clear intention to kill. And justification does not happen simply because some idiot in power tells someone to go kill other people for political reasons.

And coalition is also killing civilians for political reasons, more than thousand of them a month ATM. It is obviously calculated. It's just that someone determined murdering perhaps 5-10 thousands civilians is a OK to give power over Mosul back to Iraqi government, and gave it a go.
Definitely a good point, but we should also be asking (1) is this easier? and (2) If it isn't much, much harder, is it also just sloppy to be giving up more opportunities to risk security and (3) maybe we should re-think the internet lines into the house.

I think most of the comments so far are a play on those points.
Interesting. A bit off topic but I wonder what he's living off. He doesn't seem to have a regular job?
If you happen to have Amazon Prime you can watch the first season for free [1]. Otherwise it's $2.99/episode.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Dulcinea/dp/B018BZ3SCM/ref=sr_1_1?ie=...
The eye clearly has frequency limitations

No...the eye doesn't work that way. It is not a machine. It is organic and analog. It doesn't have some frequency limit. In any case, you're abusing the Shannon-Nyquist theorem. It absolutely does not imply that if some device is sampling at x hz then you can sample at 2x hz and produce a sufficient reproduction for the 1x hz sample. This is a common misconception.
Pascal, Ada, Oberon, Basic compilers have existed for micro-controllers for decades.

Even C++ would be a better option, given its improved type safety over plain C.

However the culture in embedded systems industry makes it very hard to use anything else besides Assembly and C.

As an example, I recently saw talks that some BMW and Sony units only now in 2017 are moving away from C into C++11.
I take it you've never worked on a monolith project before. There are always reasons (often deadline related, always legitimate, never as a result of laziness or lack of discipline) where developers have been forced to cross module boundaries.

Nobody arrives at microservices unaware of their complexity and complications. Developers are forced to choose the approach between monoliths have their own issues.

Also common shared libraries are a disastrous idea IMHO. They always become riddled with stateful business logic and the difference in requirements between their consumers means they end up brittle, inelegant and full of hacks.
For my employer, the whole point of microservices is separate deploys. When we had hundreds of engineers committing on the monolith, a bad change in one out of the few dozen commits in a given day's upgrade could require rolling the whole thing back.

Now each service deploys (usually) one or two commits at a time, completely understood by the person who clicks the "upgrade' button. People working on unrelated code don't need to block each other's release velocity.

More disciplined interfaces could have solved the spaghetti problem, but lots of small services that a few people have absolute power over can move a lot faster than an integration/release process shared by thousands.
What's the use case for something like this? The claim that it writes APIs better than I could by hand doesn't make a lot of sense to me--writing an API-ORM-thing, sure, but not a non-trivial API. I've never built an API that is simply a CRUD front-end to a database--there's always business logic + the output of the API very rarely matches the database tables underneath e.g. you may be rendering 2-3 different models, but that's never revealed to the end-user.
The comment lacks quotes for "sarcasm".
>None of those things are difficult.

But all of these things distract from the main task.

And you also have to learn LaTeX, which many might not care for.
You were bluntly lied to, you owe them nothing.
Yes, Google paid the entirety of 3 billion dollars for specifically the lines of code that are vulnerable.

Sigh. Clickbait article, "Read"-bait comment.
Oh, but you can have mutable state in different parts of a program even in a pure FP language (without having to jump through any hoops, it's right there and pretty easy to use), although a processor or signal simulator may benefit from things like FRP that are a lot better suited for, well FP, then imperative languages.

But I actually wasn't asking about pure vs imperative, but rather FP vs OOP. I haven't heard of a pure OOP language, but in that context I think those properties could be seen as more or less orthogonal.
Just as a remark, we run a bug bounty program at https://hackerone.com/nextcloud offering up to $5,000 for Remote Code Executions.

If someone here feels challenged: We look forward to your reports. :)
Sarcasm loses its fun when its not ambiguous.
Is it a surprise? Rust claims to be a systems language - and what better proof of that than someone writing a kernel in it? To me this is a clear example of "doing what it says on the tin". Also, I view the fact that the code is startlingly readable and seems (to my untutored eyes) to look a lot like other Rust code as a pretty strong validation that they are delivering on their promise.
yep. all.

want to go to war about it? actually idgaf I'm just here for the oil
Sure but they are tangled at the macro level.

What happens with monoliths is they tangle at all levels. How many times have you seen a giant "Utils" module which initially contained stateless StringUtils and similar classes then devolved into a dumping ground for stateful business logic.

Or especially with JVM applications how many times do library dependencies for one of part of the codebase end up causing issues with another. That's a big bonus with microservices i.e. being able to manage third-party dependencies better.
> appears to be in closed beta with March 31st 2017 cited as the target release date

More like April 1st, IMO.
So are you saying that you log all of your online purchases, filtering out those that already witholdings tax and remit use tax? Because for me, the burden of keeping track of that would be rather high.
Likewise. I still stay up late most nights after my wife and child go to bed so that I can have 2-3 hours of uninterrupted time to work on little projects that are interesting to me or help expand my skill set.

But that kind of work is elective, and is essentially a hybrid of hobby and duty, so I'm not convinced it fits the typical mold of a path to inevitable burnout.
Why not a camera that has both local storage and cloud based storage? Like my phone.
Ask HN: A question for those who went to MIT/Stanford/CMU
I am wondering what's the learning environment and what behavior makes folks at these and alike school smart. They don't get hung up on new Javascript framework or new language. My observation is that top performers from this school are focused on solving problems. I have met quite a few who are very smart folks but they are not chasing new Java/Scala/GO language feature. Heck, some even don't know Java programming.

Despite this, these folks solve hard problems and often solve it better than anyone else.

I am curious about distinction between chasing new language/technology/language vs solving problems. How do you see yourself after graduating from these schools?
Rapid GPU Evolution at Chinese Web Giant Tencent
Yes. In the case of MDs there is contradictory evidence. On one hand, a popular form of hazing is to make junior members work insane sleepless hours (like 24 hours straight!). On the other hand, the transfer of care from one doctor to another is a common source of errors.

PhD is a whole different story because cut-throat competition, the 996 work habits, and oppressive Confucius culture are hallmarks of the student's native lands.

tldr;

Doctors are like frat boys while PhD students bring the cultural norms from their home countries.
I agree with you about the hardness of the self driving car problem.

But I think your other point about the inevitability of regulators killing self driving cars if they are short of perfect is just as cringe-worthy, as at least as harmful.

Self-driving cars should be allowed to roll if they are better than humans, which might be the case already.

It is hard, but not impossible, for government to do the right thing.
Simons Institute Workshop: Representation Learning
You'll probably get down-voted for your choice of language, but I agree.

I actually feel what's going to happen is the JS community will start implementing WebASM and other very low-level mechanism to improve the speed of slow software components and, given enough time, will eventually just have entire binary applications being delivered through the browser (automatically installed, without asking you.)

We'll go from `yum install software-suite` to `https://www.software-suite.com/` and the results will be the same. We'll have gone full circle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_Live_Streaming#Server_imp...
What is the fair market price of perfume that has been identified as counterfeit by the FBI?
I did not downvote you, but I can point out that your focus on technology as the single most important factor in human behavior change may be oversimplistic.
Suffice it to say, I'm guessing NY's Museum of Modern Art doesn't use Dropcam. =)
I'd love to read about this, any pointers ? (although I've read a few articles, but probably not the whole story)
This is very similar to my addon Tab Close Plus for opera that can also be used on chrome that I created few years ago. It is available here: https://addons.opera.com/en/extensions/details/tab-close-plu...
https://youtu.be/16ZF-9ZjPAU
They don't have to make risky investments in these companies. They could collect the deposits and provide them to betterment/wealthfront, while they split the fees. The robo-advisors could cut their acquisition team and focus on the algorithms and the small banks could cut their advisor staff. It's basic synergy.

It's a risk free method for partnering small banks with innovative companies.
LibreOffice dropped OS/2 support early on in the project lifetime, Apache OpenOffice didn’t and a company was maintaining an OS/2 port at some point.
you've mentioned something i've not heard about without linking to it or providing a name to help me find it myself. so i'm not sure what you'd like from me.
Why do we care so much about the dev? There are way more people who use a typical program than there are people who develop it, and these people often use the program more frequently than the developers make changes to it.

For example, if a feature is used every day for a year by 10,000 people, speeding it up by 200ms is worth over a month of developer time (200ms for 10,000 people over a year is 203 hours of time wasted, which is about 25 8-hour days, or five 40-hour weeks).
At Christmas they put white lights on all of the trees except for Pete Conrad's which gets red lights. At his funeral his crew mate Alan Beam said "Pete says that while he was here he was always the shortest astronaut, but he doesn't want his tree to be the smallest tree. Pete wants his tree to be special the most colorful tree because his motto is, When you can't be good, be colorful."

I also think it would be respectful to the women who died in the space programmes to edit "his life" to "their life".
> That means there are still problems for you and me to solve.

This was my last sentence. With which I tried to say that we have to still solve the problem and come up with the solution. My comment "that's a perfect solution" was about the answer "software that can effectively monitor communications with proper privacy" to the question about properly reconciling privacy and security, in a situation where the people are okay with their communications being monitored.

But are you are expecting a answer to the question, "How will the software work?" from me.

I have no clue as so how it'll exactly work. But since you're so interested, I'll take a stab:

> Who is doing the monitoring?

The software. No humans will ever see the raw communications which haven't been flagged. Now this is obviously the tricky part. This is not a backdoored system with a magic decryption key. What I had in mind was a software possibly in-built with the communications protocol, which will, with near perfect accuracy flag suspicious communications. This is will need a leap of tech in Machine learning with NLP.

> What or who is being monitored?

All the communications (through the node) are being monitored.

> For example are we talking about monitoring the authorities to see if their access is done properly?

'They' have no access. Only the software does. How that is done is up to the "engineers/experts" to figure out. This will obviously need a change in communications architecture. When it comes to properly securing the physical part (the servers), I'm sure something can be figured out there.

> As long as you're being super vague, you don't have a solution at all.

See my first line in this comment. I don't have a solution, but I do believe that a solution exists to a problem. They're very different things.

As an analogy, in mathematics, that's similar to me saying the problem is solvable, but you're talking about the actual solution.

And sure, this is a 'perfect' solution where monitoring communications is even a possibility. I don't even support that possibility. The first comment I replied to does, which said:

"If I have to choose one from end-to-end encryption and security, I will choose security. I don't mind my WhatsApp chats are scanned by police's software, if it can reduce terrorism. Of course, we need to make sure it is used for anti-terrorism only."

So in the first place, monitoring is something that will be done. Now in that scenario, there's a solution (In retrospect, I don't think I should've said perfect).

I don't think you are going to be happy with this solution. I don't expect everyone to be. I probably will be, because while I want privacy, I'm amenable to a solution I can trust in a situation where there has to be some kind of monitoring.

Since we live in a democracy (I hope you don't live in an oppressive monarchy), it can happen when the majority of the people (senators, actually, because it is a Republic) agree with a situation when monitoring is okay.

Your opinion or my opinion is not enough to change everyone else's opinions. So we might have to learn to live with it.
I thought the "SS" part stood for Stockholm Syndrome. Looking at some of the comments here, it seems I may have been right..
To everyone who says "why do we need this when we have LaTeX?" I ask the question "why do we need Markdown when we have HTML?"

The nice thing about Markdown is that it's quite legible in its source form, which makes it less distracting to edit. Same deal with AsciiMath and LaTeX: AsciiMath is more legible in its source form which means that it has lower overhead during editing.

One of these is more legible than the other:

(f'(x^2+y^2)^2)/(g'(x^2+y^2)^2)
\frac{f'\left(x^2+y^2\right)}{g'\left(x^2+y^2\right)^2}

In my experience, most people who learn LaTeX don't do so until sometime around the middle or end of their undergrad career (certainly in Physics--maybe mathematicians learn it sooner). Earlier than that, people struggle with junk like the Microsoft equation editor. No big deal?
I think people should just do this: https://sockpuppet.org/blog/2015/03/06/the-hiring-post/
I love the clean, simple format but context is unclear -- who's it targeted to?
On number 3, that behavior is exactly what I would expect. Not sure what other logical behavior you would propose...

The other options don't make sense:

"A) Aligned horizontally with the first two, but after both of them?"

Floats are taken out of the normal flow so they will be pulled as far to the side as possible until they reach another floated element or the edge of the BFC.

"B) On the row after the first two, on the far left side?"
"C) On the row after the first two, on the far right side?"

They are floated elements in the same BFC, if they fit on the same line, they will. Unless you clear them. Pretty simple stuff.
Hanlon's digital razor: never attribute to malice and/or shere stupidity that which can be attributed to sarcasm
The point is, of course, that the muslim/sharia rule about ending marriage is discriminatory. Only the man can end the marriage at all. If a man abuses the woman, in an islamic marriage, there is no possibility of divorce (disregarding minority rules, like Shi'a islam, and even there, only if specified in the prenup).

Secondly, a man can end a marriage without any consequences in Sunni islam, instantly. No alimony, not even care for the kids if he doesn't want to. He can just kick the woman out from one day to another.

The woman described in the article experienced both sides of this. She was not allowed a divorce when she wanted one, even when it was obvious her husband was beating her (apparently because she had a daughter instead of a son), and she got no financial support from the man, and neither did her child. She had to shoulder the entire financial burden.

In most muslim nations there are activists demanding changes to the islamic marriage rules. Sometimes along the lines here, but also along other lines, that ending a marriage by the woman becomes possible to end situations of abuse.

There's history behind this. There was a campaign a while back by muslim women to ask that Christian rules be allowed to regulate muslim marriage, because firstly they're not discriminatory towards women, and secondly they demand people take some responsibility for their family.

So you may want to rethink your comment. This is a struggle for equality first.

And of course, there is profound unfairness in islamic marriage. Women, especially when confronted with alternatives, want better. This is not wrong. This is progress.

Islam's rules are discriminatory on many fronts, to the point that there are clear differences in legal status amongst many enforced classes in society, which are not equal before the law. That is one reason islam and sharia are such disasters. The classes in islam are: muslims, non-muslim oppressed Christians and Jews, slaves, and kuffar. Slaves and kuffar can be murdered without punishment (slaves only by their owner). All of these classes are further split between men and women, with the men on top. "Somehow" things like this never seem to come up in discussions of what is and isn't tolerant.
Assuming you have an iPhone, which iPhone app do you use?
I've come to loath articles that stretch out a mildly interesting news and bio into a long narrative that muddies the interesting part.
>It is astonishing how fast a computer is without the overhead most modern languages bring in.

No kidding! I once implemented Knuth's Dancing Links/Algorithm X[1] in Python, as part of a Sudoku solver. At one step in the algorithm you need to choose from a group of "things to do next"; the C version I was using as a reference just chose "the next item" in the group (it was stored as a linked list). Changing it to the more efficient method of scanning all the items and choosing the one which would more fully constrain the search space made no obvious difference in the time it took to solve a 9x9 Sudoku -- practically instant.

In the Python version, the efficient strategy also solved 9x9's practically instantly; the simpler strategy ended up taking several minutes! I forget exactly how many unnecessary steps the simpler version ending up taking -- hundreds of thousands, maybe -- but the C code just got out of the way and let the processor crunch through them too quickly to care about.

[1] https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~jchu/publicportal/sudoku/00110...
Nicely designed, simple, and well organized. Looks like you even left some space for advertising in there. Good luck with it! :)
I don't think it's fair of you to switch to the language "ruining things for others" - of course they don't want to explicitly "ruin things".

If you had said, "I don't think making sure that things don't happen instantly is explicitly part of their grand plan" then I would dispute that statement. (Yes, making sure things don't happen instantly is explicitly/implicitly part of their grand plan.)

They want users to have an "experience" not just click a button or press a key and instantly see the result. It is very explicitly part of their plan, and if the algorithms don't slow things down enough, they actually request animations or loading screens that do so.

Some of it may be implicit, rather than explicit. For example, a front-end javascript framework might actually produce pixel for pixel the exact same result as a simple HTML file generated more quickly on the back-end might do, but could still be a preferable "experience".

All this could be tested explicitly. For example two groups of PM's could evaluate web sites, where one included Working... screens where a javascript framework slowly renders something client-side, and the other could have pixel-for-pixel the same thing served from the server, using less bandwidth than it took to even transfer the javascript files over, so that the result is served much, much faster.

I hereby formally predict that some PM's will prefer the slower version for the exact and only reason that it is a slower user experience, and that this could be verified with a double-blind and carefully controlled experiment. I've put my claim out there, and it is easily falsifiable as well as has explanatory power in terms of the software we actually see.

Very simply: some PM's prefer a slower user experience. (I claim.)
Awesome, thank you very much for the description!
well most of the examples are in interpreted python which would be one of those bad design choices.
The relevant discussion is here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yIPuHsB8q8
https://www.kickstarter.com/discover/categories/film%20&%20v...
gRPC can do the same and define the service calls.