skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I first started coding because I wanted to create fractals (Julia sets, Mandlebrots, Sierpinski gaskets).

Fractint (https://fractint.org) is brilliant for exploring these things of mathematical beauty.
Yes. Maybe.

Is it an axiom of the scientific method? [No?]

Is it a tautology? [Maybe?]

Are there other examples other than the basis of knowledge being knowledge? [?]
If you decrease the size per unit, you will have more units per apartment complex of the same size.
Well what I mean by why is the overall moral question of doing the right thing for the continued survival of life on the planet. That's more or less a metaphysical thing. And we don't have that figured out. And it does not seem to me that science will provide the answer to this. As science is hierarchical and specialized. It might provide individual answers but it does not provide guidance as to how or why to use those answers. For instance why we must live or do things a certain way. It merely provides knowledge and tools and then we apply that knowledge and tools to act on the world. If we do not act properly on the world with our science we will inevitably destroy the world. Currently we use the economic paradigm as our moral compass, which seems to work in certain cases but in other cases fails. Philosophy is needed to address this sort of deficit in our economic thinking.
Vocational education normally is certification based.
I concur. Especially if you define "professional" as "stuff people do at work, for money", the kind of code I saw in my career... well, it wasn't that much different from the code I was writing when I was 13.
Yep, international money in the housing market is forgivable, but there is no way they should have allowed such massive investments in the new coal mines.
The existence of multiverses is philosophy.
That might be one logical approach, but it's not actually true. "Flight tested" rockets already offer a 10% discount to customers, and they say the plan is to get to 30% eventually.
You're right. The problem was never really fake news it was more that a significant chunk of the population has abandoned consensus reality. This is not a US problem either. I travel a lot and everywhere -- Europe, Japan, Australia, India, and the US -- you see the same exact pattern played over and over. Right-wing partisans lose all trust in the established media[1] after decades of right-wing politicians insisting that journalists can't be trusted. Right-wing partisans deliberately constructing their own parallel knowledge community and this enables right-wing politicians to speak, completely unchallenged, about events that never happened and facts that aren't facts[2]. The end-game, where right-wing voters, having isolated themselves completely, begin to insist on more and more outlandish conspiracies[3] until we're talking about secret pedophilia rings and the Pope conspiring with Hollywood Jews and millions of fake voters voting in the most closely watched election in the history of the planet.

The interesting thing about this process is how deliberate and effective it is -- and I think, if you spend time on these right-wing forums, like yourself, you start to realize that nobody has been "duped," these people aren't fools, they are eager and willing participants in engineering a state of mass delusion. This was very apparent to Deleuze who grasped this very clearly:

Reich is at his profoundest as a thinker when he refuses to accept ignorance or illusion on the part of the masses as an explanation of fascism, and demands an explanation that will take their desire into account, an explanation formulated in terms of desire: no, the masses were not innocent dupes; at a certain point, under a certain set of conditions, they wanted fascism, and it is this perversion of the desire of the masses that needs to be accounted for. (Deleuze and Guattari 1977: 29)

Like the war on drugs it is nonsensical to focus on the supply when the demand is so great. A population addicted to fake news, a population that wants to be propagandized, a population that will gather online in forums and message boards and self-propagandize, is going to find and consume fake news and generate conspiracy theories no matter what.

And I think a liberal society has to let this happen. It's not like China, the State is not going to deploy its own highly-trained, well-paid "media operatives" to find and destroy this alternative media ecosystem while lavishly funding the official media ecosystem. The whole point of liberal society is that desire is allowed to run its course.

[1] https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/19/as-hyper-conservative-medi...

[2] http://www.cjr.org/analysis/breitbart-media-trump-harvard-st...

[3] https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/how-macedonia-became...
Upcoming.org founder relaunches site four years after Yahoo shut it down
Uncovering a spam network on Quora
The Dynamic World of Search Ads – Errors and Pitfalls to Avoid on DSA and DKI
I disagree. The premise for someone to believe all this BS, isn't that they're convinced by the new theory, but that everything the conventional media or the government say is probably false, and made to hide some hidden agenda. That's the root upon which all the additional propaganda can prosper.

And the embarrassing truth than conventional media and politics refuse to admit is that there are good reasons for people not to believe them anymore.
A UK entrepreneur takes flight by attaching miniature jet engines to his limbs
Then everyone on this planet are immigrants!
Trolls Tounge (Trolltunga) in Google Street View
That's because modern institutions are not trustworthy. Vast conspiracies were posited, laughed off as tin-foil-hattery, and later exposed as true (Snowden being the canonical example)

Modern institutions may or may not be trustworthy, but AFAIK they weren't laughing off "vast conspiracies" which later turned out to be true. For example, I'm not aware of any mainstream media which laughed about the echelon program which later turned out to be true.

It's true that mainstream media didn't write about these theories, but one can easily argue that was reasonable given the lack of evidence.

It's important to note that details matter when reporting news, and these details were unknown prior to Snowden. It's also true that often the details get ignored (as one can see by the number of people who think that the PRISM program says that Google/Apple conspired with the NSA when in-fact it says the opposite), but I'm not sure that is completely the media's fault.
Multiverses as a result of space receding faster than speed of light are pretty much universally accepted. Other kinds are more controversial. There are galaxies not co-existant with us in the future that are now.
Mathematics is based on logical deduction. You start with a set of rules and you prove additional rules.

Science is based on (lots of things but primarily) empirical induction. You observe some phenomena, decide that they are of the same type, generate a model that predicts how all phenomena of that type behave. By necessity you observe an infinitesimal fraction of the phenomena in your type.

In math proofs are universal and timeless and complete. There is no additional observation to be made. A proof can be wrong, but if we conclude that it is logically correct then that's it. (edit: well, there's the incompleteness theorem: it could be that a set of axioms is inconsistent, but then EVERYTHING based on those axioms becomes invalid. It's still quite different than scientific progress which changes models a little bit at a time.)

Scientific models are approximations of reality(very good approximations often!) but they get tweaked as new observations come in. Or just wholesale thrown out(or at least become obsolete), see Newtonian orbital mechanics vs relativistic orbital mechanics. Newton was right-ish, but relativistic solutions are right-er(possibly fully correct?)[1].

With deductive reasoning you are expanding a definition. With inductive reasoning you are guessing at connections between observed events.

[1] http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26408/what-did-ge...
Scale API (S16) Is Hiring Back End and ML Engineers
Why use JQuery when you can do it in a way that's more ugly, more verbose, less portable, more likely to break?
See my other answer to a comment that said the same thing.
I agree that the first part was the strong part of the paper (and was the reason I decided to link it on HN), and e.g. statistics about differing word usage in different fields isn't what I'd call conclusive evidence.

But are you postulating that all arguments (for a weaker version of) Scientism (either all arguments there are or even only the all arguments the author presents), are silly? That's something I'd disagree with.

For example, while science isn't the perfect process like in the textbooks portrayals, a model that produces testable predictions (and thus can be evaluated) seems the very good way to characterize how we get new knowledge about various phenomena of the world and can convince others that it is knowledge and not just an esteemed opinion.

Also the bit "vicious circularity" resonated with me: in my opinion, (looking at what we know of the evolutionary history our species[1]) it's quite reasonable hypothesis that humans could develop logic and mathematics in the first place because of the physical world we observe is regular and predictive enough so that human cognition had a chance to develop.

[1] Not in the evo psych sense, just that we descend from the same great-great-*-parents as our cousins (the other) apes, and during the history we ended up being the ones with wider cognitive capabilities. Even though our cousins are relatively bright.
17 Most Helpful Node.js Open Source Projects According to Experts
Flight instructors like to share this quote: a good landing is when nobody gets hurt. A very good landing is when you can re-use the plane.

Looks like SpaceX had (yet another) very good landing!!
Infowars is anti-globalist. The Russian state is anti-globalist. Not really surprising that they'd have similar talking points.

Peter Hitchens does a good job of explaining why conservative anti-globalists like Russia – "Why I Like Vladimir Putin" https://youtu.be/UeO44STvnJw
Dailyfeed – iOS news app with 60+ premier news providers
>In any case, if everything goes smoothly (and I hope it will), that doesn't disprove me.

Doesn't that make your case an empty statement that basically amounts to "you can never be too careful" (and which is always right, no matter the outcome)?

>But I don't see why pushing APFS now as opposed to in a few years is worth the risk of that 0.1%.

Because it improves lots of things with the 99.9% -- SSD utilization, better Time Machine, etc.
Science is a part of philosophy, and at the same time it extends it. You're assuming that philosophy is only idealist guessing, which is wrong.

I mean, you wouldn't say that "Large areas of science are routinely demolished" by newer science, even though strictly speaking it's true, and you'd therefore give up on science as a whole?

(And if I'd really want to be mean, I'd ask you if science has ever even proven the "real world" exists or that science is true, but I think you got my point.)
In my experience, your point is valid regarding some software jobs, but not all.

As I've worked my way into more technically demanding roles, it's been very useful to have a foundation of big-O analysis, the expressive power of different levels in the Chomsky hierarchy, (mathematical) optimization theory, graph theory, compilers, and/or computer architecture.

Many of these topics could be learned by a bright person on-demand.

However, some of the topics are important to be familiar with before taking on a project, because they let you avoid costly, time-consuming mistakes.
That's very hard to believe. What companies have you seen that at?
> What is an example of a hypothesis that is not falsifiable by experiment but should still be considered "knowledge"?

As the paper points out, things like the following are problematic from a purely experimental approach:

"Scientific knowledge is better than non-scientific knowledge."

Yet many scientists treat it as common knowledge.
> Which phenomena would you consider not ultimately analysable via scientific methodology?

The physical existence of an external world, beyond my (TuringTest's) self-consciousness.
Very interesting, we have throttling for our customer facing API built with PHP and found this library very useful: https://github.com/sunspikes/php-ratelimiter#throttler-types
Next phase: You Don't Need Native APIs, use React.

Source: lamenting the fact that I haven't used querySelector in almost a year.
I wonder if, once they get a rocket to the max calculated safe launches, which will obviously have some margin built-in, it would be sufficiently worthwhile to keep launching it with low-value payloads (or none at all) and actually test it to failure.

My intuition leans toward no, obviously because launches are very expensive in terms of fuel and other stages, but also because there's no guarantee the test rocket would be representative, so for it to be really meaningful they would have to repeat the experiment several times. Still doesn't seem inconceivable though.
Yeah absolutely. I always reduced this to "three months" and passed the phrase around to juniors, etc. And when I interviewed at the last company I worked for, the CEO specifically said, "If you aren't horrified by something you wrote three months ago..." And that's when I knew I wanted to work there (among many other reasons, of course).
Well, now that you mention JFK, I'm reminded of "The Realist".[0] Lol. And maybe the CIA manipulated Oswald into killing him. CIA will reportedly declassify some relevant documents this year.[1] But I doubt that they'll be interesting.

0) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Realist

1) http://edition.cnn.com/2013/11/16/us/jfk-assassination-consp...
The choice is not to get the same information but from known sources. In most cases, you won't get the information at all.

And people misunderstand the mechanism here: journalists quoting unnamed sources put their own reputation on the line as a stand-in for their sources. They know the names, and they build relationships with these sources. The sources/treacherous illoyal leakers/whistleblowers are career politicians or officials, and their relationship with someone at the Journal or the Times is equally valuable for them.

Looking at the current storyline on Russia, I know there are daily leaks from "unnamed sources". But I can't think of a case where these sources turned out to be wrong – maybe there are, but I'm pretty sure the vast majority have turned out to be accurate. See for example "leak zero" of Flynn talking to the ambassador. We'll see about the example you added on Nunes' sources, but it seems like that information also has multiple confirmations by now.

I'd also like to point out that you're moving the goalpost and not answering my question, and that I actually thought about a specific exclusion of the NYT's failure on WMDs because it's getting old.

I also seem to remember that it was a very-much-not-anonymous Colin Powell who made the WMD case to the UN which actually allowed the US to invade.
What's with all the socialist propaganda from Bloomberg today? Plenty of HN readers make over 100k straight out of college. It's not taxpayers fault that you didnt spend your time wisely in college
College, for profit little more than professional training centers sure. Proper University no, culture and knowledge is never a waste
It's self evident. One personal and very small example (many thousands is obviously less than 10 thousand) doesn't prove anything.

curl has an order of 120000 non-empty lines in c and h files.

The person who made statement of "many thousand" probably made toy applications, compared to something like curl.

More realistic would be to compare something that should have been made in curl: like the "ring" library you mentioned as a Rust answer to "openssl." Which is neither an openssl nor written in Rust.

It is far from providing the functionality of openssl. The author states that:

"ring exposes a Rust API and is written in a hybrid of Rust, C, and assembly language."

"ring is focused on general-purpose cryptography. WebPKI X.509 certificate validation is done in the webpki project, which is built on top of ring. Also, multiple groups are working on implementations of cryptographic protocols like TLS, SSH, and DNSSEC on top of ring."

Actually a wrapper, and actually much smaller than openssl.

Second, "ring" has just some 9000 lines in rs files but 13000 lines of C (as it is defined by the author to be a wrapper, not surprising). So it is still just a wrapper around the C, still orders of magnitude smaller than curl, and still unable to be actually written in Rust.

On that level, I guess the Rust people would call curl the Rust application as soon as a few .rs files would appear in curl code base. Or not.

It's simply has no sense, supporting Rust with misinformation instead of being honest about its current limitations regarding what's actually implemented and what actually doesn't use "unsafe."

It's obvious that those who suggest to others to rewrite the big projects in Rust should first show that they managed to make some much smaller safe code. Especially that they managed to make some meaningful full-Rust and safe libraries.
Only partially, I've seen places like you describe: there will be one or two 'trailblazing' projects but over the next 5-10 years all the surrounding area will develop with malls, more appartments and such.
It works well many places. Maybe not quite 20-story appartment blocks, but Norway has plenty of examples of mid-density 5-6 story apartment complexes in groups pretty much in the middle of nowhere that are popular and function well.

I think a key distinction is that to work well these developments needs to be demand driven, and social housing needs to be integrated without being allowed to dominate.

Norway has its share of bigger apartment blocks built rapidly right after the war to cover a lot of social housing too, and they tend to have been a bigger problem. But most of the house building in Norway after the war was part funded by government through cheap loans etc., but were managed by private house-building associations that built based on which locations and types of housing was attractive to people. And that's what has driven a lot of the building of areas like the ones mentioned above.

So there were fewer large scale attempts at building these huge social housing estates that have served to basically concentrate social problems in some countries.

E.g. near where I live now in London we have a couple of major council estates that used to be big problems because they were basically a way of building cheap housing out in the middle of nowhere with no services, and dumping thousands of underprivileged people together there. It was thought of as massively progressive at the time - you built pretty much villages (these estates have their own shopping parades) out in the middle of nowhere. But while many of the people given flats there were regular families, many were also people with additional problems ranging from mental problems through drug/alcohol problems and other issues that contributed to making the estates themselves hotspots of social problems that affected everyone. One of these estates had a life expectancy five years below the UK average for a long time, and it took decades to normalise things there.

Currently, partly as a result of financial constraints, partly as a result of harsh lessons like that, most new social housing in London at least comes in form of concessions by developers as part of the planning process that involves much lower concentration of subsidised or council run properties in any development, rather than building these large estates.

So I don't think the problem with the more suburban apartment complexes had much to do with the concept, and much more to do with an execution where it was often driven by ideology and totally unproved theories about city planning that were allowed to run amok in the post war period in an urgent need for volume that favoured large projects even when how they affected the integrity of the cities was unproven.
I wish people would blog more like this.

Majority of blogging is focused on how to use something or describe some final idea/conclusion. They are not bad per se but reading about failed ideas, dead ends etc. - the journey itself that lead to the final shape/conclusion is very valuable.
Mostly agree, but there are use cases like performance where it's best to go as low level as possible.
Having used Drayteks, and supported them, and indeed having owned one (company supplied for site-to-site VPN) I wouldn't recommend them. The feature set is great, the router is not.
Trust in the mainstream media has only collapsed among a single group: the right-wing[1]. This is where your "it's just desserts" narrative falls apart. Study after study [2] shows that while the mainstream media is still popular and widespread among the majority, the right-wing have literally gone off and formed their own media-sphere.

And while there's no doubt that the media has engaged in deliberate propaganda -- though Snowden has nothing to do with this, the canonical example is actually Iraq -- it's highly doubtful that people are turning to InfoWars because they no longer trust the New York Times to give them verified, well-sourced, non-partisan reasonable facts and interpreting. That doesn't actually make any sense at all under even cursory analysis.

[1] https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/19/as-hyper-conservative-medi...

[2] http://www.cjr.org/analysis/breitbart-media-trump-harvard-st...
Previous discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13995072 just 20 hours ago.
They ended that law a while ago by the way.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/01/10/brussels_announces_...
This is exactly what I came here to type. Or, you can take all the vanilla js snippets, wrap them into a shorter notation... and build your own jQuery, just with less portability. I don't get the point of this.
I actually tried using plain JS in recent projects of mine , here`s my take .

If it is a simple 3-4 page website I write it in plain JS , if it is a complex website with lots of views and components I write in Vue + plain JS (if req).
Were the lucky country, "She'll be right" is the mentality of everyone here.
This site has an excellent series of in-depth interviews with Mandelbrot; profiling his early life, his capacity to think mathematically "in pictures", and goal to link seemingly disparate fields such as "social" and "natural" sciences through fractal mathematics.

EDIT: forgot the link godammit https://www.webofstories.com/play/benoit.mandelbrot/6
This explains some digital logic but does not actually explain how a CPU works.

It does not explain an XOR gate, but references them. It also does not explain flip-flops, but references them also.

There should probably be an explanation of state machines since they are usually used to control the cycles in a CPU.

The title is actually "How does a CPU works?" but other than these few things it was a good article.

I know that text messages seem more harsh than intended and do not wish to seem demeaning, but helpful.

I bought a book called "Thinking Machines" by Irving Adler in 1962 which explained the concepts in this article (except for the 74181 ALU) and the XOR and flip-flops but did not understand how a computer actually worked until many years later.
// jQuery
$el.siblings();

// Native
Array.prototype.filter.call(el.parentNode.children, (child) =>
child !== el
);

Yes, much clearer
welcome to the western world, what you describe can be said about most european capitals and many many US cities (and probably rest of world too). not going to change, at least not for the better, anytime soon.
[French] ReST API White Paper – Bonnes Pratiques. Will Soon Be Translated
The irony is that it took a philosopher to produce a much better defense of scientism than many scientists are capable of.
Linux development in VS 2017