skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Copyleft software presumes software exists in a vaccum where money and funding aren't an issue in other areas of society..

If everything in computer software is copylefted, the status quo in the rest of the non-software economy persists.

Further, examples of AGPL 'free software' for the web backed by the dominant cloud service provider essentially give them an unlimited monopoly on that particular service, since, as copyright holder, they will be the only party able to create a proprietary fork which is better than the competition..

More philosophically:

The spirit of the law is always greater than the law itself..
It wouldn't surprise me if that was done to satisfy some large entity's contractual requirements. Perhaps some part of the government that invested in OS/2.
60K for learning how to make mobile and web apps seems like a lot regardless of where you are located. The only advantage would seem to be the in-person classes and the full-time nature of it but if your goal is to learn mobile and web application development then you have a lot of cheaper options (Udacity, Coursera, books) if you have the self-motivation and discipline to learn on your own. I guess the real question to answer is "Worth it compared to what other options you are considering"?
I think the best option is to remove pilots in the first place. If physical access does not let you take over the aircraft then there is little meaning to attacking aircraft vs other random crouds of people.

US military drones have actual weapons and they are not hacked so that part seems to work well.
Not sure. I don't see any support for item relationships. It could just be a lack of documentation though.
> we decided to write our own using API Gateway, Lambda and DynamoDB because: ... even running consul with 2 nodes (you need some redundancy for production) it is still order of magnitude more expensive

Engineering time is free, of course.
LibreOffice uses Flatpak too, so it should be as doable as any of the ones we have. But I didn't try myself :)
I am told at work (I work in the cancer-medicine field but am no expert) that there are upwards of 1,000 distinct targeted cancer therapies in various stages of R&D at present. They could certainly (and likely will) make a big dent
Re: whether the pamphlet was written by a man or a woman, if you reread you'll see that I simply note that others have speculated, but there's no evidence either way. Suffice to say, 17th century pamphlets aren't always what they purport to be, so I think it's best to be agnostic about claims of authorship without additional documentation.
Not sure if this is the same course, but:

http://files.pharo.org/mooc/
TypeScript approved as internal development language at Google
Naming is hard.

I'm sure they care a whole lot more about the project than the name.
> doing so would imply we aren't as good as feel we are.

Or to put it more pessimistically: even worse than we feel we are. Impostor syndrome and all that.
Yes. Getting hired by Google is only part of the deal. Actually _succeeding_ when you're already there is much more difficult. It's a high pressure environment with a lot of very smart overachievers. Because of this it's sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy, and people who don't measure up also don't feel welcome, as it were. Since performance reviews are largely derived from peer feedback, hiring mistakes tend to be self-correcting. Most of the time, though, I've seen great people leave just because they didn't like the pressure. The amount of pressure depends on the team. The higher the profile -- the more pressure (but also more rewards, greater career potential, etc). But the general bar for what's considered "good work" is pretty high, and more uniform than in any other large company I have ever worked at.

Then there's the issue that by the time you even get an on-site, you're already very much not a random candidate. Recruiters actually do look at your track record, etc. You can bullshit there, but I don't recommend it, since references will be spot checked, and they better line up.

Google interviews are largely a roll of the dice above certain level of basic engineering competence. I.e. if you don't know the basics, you will almost certainly not pass them. But if you're a more senior candidate, Google doesn't really know how to interview you, and their interview process turns into a random number generator biased heavily towards "no hire".
> Politicians don’t get to write about the successes of their own policies

Politicians boast about successes constantly. I don't understand what you mean by "get to".
While making millions to billions dominating a market I own. So, sure. Other circumstances it would just teach you can experiment more than a few things a week.
..And nothing else competing for the bandwidth
SegWit + HF does not eliminate this class of optimization. Most SegWit+HF proposals would reorganize the bitcoin header structure so as to be compatible with ASICBOOST-like optimizations.
Now that's a better point. Obviously, the amount of changes are tied to company's circumstances.
Don’t let people park for free
Can't upvote this enough. 'Arpeggiator' and 'Souvenir of China', both of which only appeared on the Concerts in China CD, are superb. Jarre at his absolute peak.
I want to say that I've been on the anti-censorship boat and the 'AXA money is sketchy' and the unlimited train for as long as I've heard of it.

Just recently, someone in the ecosystem that I've known since the beginning of my time with Bitcoin came out in support of Blockstream and Segwit with a backing of other Canadian support.

https://medium.com/@francispouliot/canadian-bitcoin-economic...

I don't know what to make of it all. I spoke with him a bit and he seems to believe that those pushing against segwit are paid by ASICboosters in China because they stand to make $100,000,000/yearly from their (now not so secret) advantage.

In any case, I just wanted to add that I'm more confused than ever and things are very unclear.
I am homeless and a homeless advocate. I agree with you. Email addresses can be had for free and accessed for free via, for example, going to a public library.

I am online all the fucking time, even when my tablet or laptop has died and I don't yet have the means to replace it. Sometimes I have a phone. Sometimes, I don't. I have yet to find a 100% free and reliable means to have a phone number.
Isn't that true for any system you use to predict? If you rely on "gut instinct", then you filter out people who aren't good at fooling gut instinct. Ugly people, short people, people with poor social skills, autistics, etc. That's hardly fair either.

If you want to make the most accurate predictions possible, you absolutely should not use gut instinct. If you want to be fair, then have a lottery or select randomly. You can't have both. There's nothing remotely fair about gut instinct. See, e.g. judges giving unattractive people twice the sentences of attractive ones. I can provide tons more examples of stuff like that. Gut instinct should be illegal.
Until you start working with Clojure or even Kotlin. Then Scala feels like a baroque behemoth.
But we do provide free parking.
> Don't use a relational DB if you deal with time series data. There's time series databases which are far, far better at that. InfluxDB is a good example.

Better how? FWIW I'm currently running a 1TB time series DB on Postgres. It runs butter smooth, provides great performance (I'm using table inheritance), great querying tools, plus admin load is minimal.
>On the other side, one of the problems people have with GCC is that it's run by people who actively want to make worse software for political reasons.

Well, for an end user those 'political' reasons are often practical benefits.

Having features only available as proprietary add-ons or through proprietary forks, or being locked out of running the code of your choice on hardware you've bought, are things I find very unappealing.

Of course there are downsides with copyleft as well, because there is no perfect solution to this problem.

Personally I'm favoring permissive licensing for projects where there is little or no incentive for commercial proprietary forks, and copyleft for projects where there is (typically end user targeted).
This I think is a very a good point. The scariest point about Lazlo Block's book is that he is very against the idea that people can improve or be trained better. To him there is this idea of predestination. You're either always good and always have been, or you're not good and won't get better and there is nothing Google can do.

I feel like as a company you could exploit a lot of value by just hiring people and training them. Training btw doesn't mean at work. Think how much you learned in college lectures vs. reading the actual textbook. It means going home and studying, and the incentive should be that you're getting things that make you more employable, so this shouldn't count towards hours (if it was say a very proprietary old programming language though I could see this argument falling apart).

Not saying this is the best way but shocked that everyone is "trying to find the best". What kind of world will that leave us in if all companies want to hire the same 3% of
people? Businesses move slower, talent is lost, and inefficiencies accrue.
> > Second, the tool ecosystem surrounding Smalltalk is abysmal and antiquated compared to modern IDE's.

> Actually modern IDE's are abysmal compared to what Smalltalk offered even back in 1995.

Perhaps more fairly than either of those characterizations, most modern IDEs are influenced by a different set of priorities than typical Smalltalk dev environments, and have different strengths and weaknesses, and most current developers are (whether this is inherently better or just an adaptation to the tools they use) attached to workflows that major modern IDEs support better than Smalltalk toolsets (OTOH, the exact reverse is probably true of most Smalltalk developers, though they are smaller in number.)
As an Orbit fan, I remember sitting in a car in the late 90s hearing his very distinctive sound. That's weird, I thought, Radio 1 (UK pop station) doesn't usually play William Orbit.

It was a pre-release of Madonna's new album Ray of Light - produced by Orbit and very much his style. I think he's gone off the boil recently, but Strange Cargo 3 and Hinterland-era Orbit still holds up.
I first used OS/2 2(.11 I think), which was expensive (but my dad bought it). OS/2 3.0 Warp on the other hand was given away for free with a ton of computer magazines...
Over the years, how has your perspective on the stack + the type of work you're doing changed? I feel like due to my age I don't have the context to make a decision based on factors that will actually matter in the long term.
The problems in automated driving are not in controlled and normal circumstances but in all the edge cases and exceptions.
Making sure I understand you: When you refer to work sample tests here, that refers to the crypto challenges and things like that that you published at Matasano? And you're saying that was much more predictive than the list of facts methods, right?
The claim you mention about getting to know the person better in random interviews as well as "People can’t help seeing signals, even in noise." is misleading and unsurprising.

People ask questions in interviews that they want to know the answer to and that could go either way. All questions have equivalent expected surprise, either both answers are unsurprising, or one answer is surprising, but you think you already know the answer is the other one.

If interviewers were asking questions like "is 2+2=4" they would have detected random interviewers way easier, but they wouldn't be trying very hard to get to know the person.

As for getting to know the person, the more surprising someone's answers are, if you believe they are telling the truth, the more distinguishes them from "average person who gave answers I expected", so you say you "got to know" them. This is unsurprising.

This isn't to defend unstructured interviews, other studies for a long time have shown them to be worse than structured interviews and test scores. If I had to guess the only reason the research in the article got published as novel was the random interview part.

Edit: Here's a table from a meta-analysis of lots of studies on correlation between different factors and job performance: http://imgur.com/a/YRFTh. Basically unstructured interviews aren't as good as structured ones, but they are better than nothing. Work samples are the best, structured interviews and IQ tests tie for second.

Note that this meta-analysis is combining a bunch of different fields to yield general observations, a specific field may have different results. But in expectation for a randomly selected field these are fairly solid results, and I don't expect fields vary from them too much.
The biggest problem with instinct/intuition is that you need to have enough relevant experience for it to work. Your intuition ends up being completely wrong when you brain doesn't have enough data to work with. When it does have enough data it's an extremely powerful tool.

I think it would be cool if a company like Google published anonymized data about the correlation between interview "scores" and some post-hire metrics. My guess is the correlation would be poor to non-existent. Picking those metrics is difficult, perhaps an obvious one that is difficult to game is how long the employee stayed with the company. Another interesting one would be anonymous peer evaluations where it's guaranteed no one would see the data points so it wouldn't suffer from the problems 360 reviews have.

I think the best you can do is some sort of mix between a more structured portion trying to gauge where the candidate is in terms of knowledge and intelligence and a less structured portion where you try and get more of a "feel" for the candidate's personality. You have to realize that under the best of times it's not perfect. Rejecting someone can't code at all for a software position should be relatively easy. Ability to tackle bigger things can be gauged by looking into previous projects and through references. I think there's a big region though where the outcome is difficult to determine.

I think back to the very first time I was involved in a hiring decision. The guy was very smart, technically capable, engineering degree; PhD material. Seemed pleasant enough. Got hired and IMO definitely the kind of person a company like Google would hire with their process. He lost interest fairly quickly on the job. Working with him I found he had some very odd, not to say crazy, political opinions. Everything was too boring for him so he didn't really get that much done. Couldn't really work independently at all. He left the job, left the country, and I think he ended up being a cab driver. Not sure. Yet another example is someone fresh out of school with a CS masters degree who despite all the help of the team could simply not wrap his head around the project and become productive. On paper all the right credentials but first real world job and he couldn't cope for some reason. Ended up leaving. I've seen a few CS background people just not find their place. I'm sure we've all seen situations where we wonder how some person got hired and how come they're still there. Over time I think I learned to do a better job hiring/interviewing and have had a stream of pretty successful hiring decisions.

It turns out that it takes many months on the job to really know the fit. Even if the person is capable the specific job or team may not work out. Some people are very good at making it look like they're accomplishing things while they're not really. There's no way any company has a secret sauce of only hiring "great" people and even great people will do poorly under certain circumstances and conversely not so great people can be very successful under the right circumstances. Some people can grow really quickly while others can't.
One aspect amongst many?
OS/2 might have been somehow better than Windows Consumer (and that's given the proper big enough computer at the time), but it was clearly inferior to NT. In term of tradeoffs though, maybe they are comparable (using the first versions of NT, maybe OS/2 needed slightly less resources, and we can put it between 3.1 and NT on the technical vs. resource usage tradeoff scale?)

BeOS made some terrible mistakes (gcc version depend C++ ABI, for example, and all of that at a time the C++ language was quite terrible) but was otherwise an interesting and refreshing OS, with cool ideas and goals.

NextSTEP was mainly just a Unix system with Objective-C framework in upper layers. It gave us OS X. Obviously it was superior to Consumer Windows (but that comparison again is strongly biased given it did not target the same computers at all), and it can be debated to hell whether it was superior or not to NT (depends on which aspect you care about, probably).
Indeed they did not. But, they did break the (unspoken) promise that I could freely keep streaming and redownloading all my iTunes purchases from every machine. You can call it a courtesy service to provide that, and technically that's true, but that courtesy is a huge part of the convenience of iTunes, and definitely convinces people to "buy".
When Globalization Brings Brain-Invading Worms
> it's not an economic indicator

Can you explain this statement? It's almost synonymous with the stock market, and is one of the most common headline numbers that people mention in business and economy news reports.
It's a shame that the writing quality has been in steady decline. It really became apparent when the sister show "Futurama" was brought back in 2010. Mostly the same writers, but not even remotely as funny or interesting as 1999-2003, with zero subtlety in the humor.
no, i would bet 80% of projects on github need help. just ask.
Ask HN: What Happened to Model Driven Development
Why am I getting taught this in final year of university.

Is this paradigm still used in non-legacy areas?

Regards,
I think you should have error codes ("enums") all the way and the a way to translate these into error messages. That removes a lot of problems with spelling, changing the error message and interoperability with outers using your package.
I got the same feeling here. Implicits in Scala can act as statically checked dependency injection, I don't know why they are going for this runtime dependant injection instead.
I can't look at the design of their widgets. I'm on a iPhone using Safari. It's like being in the middle of the fucking browser wars all over again. For a damn demo. Seriously?
Genetic algorithms are not neural nets though.
Another tax on poor people
Yes, but the post is about a group of people or an individual who works in a particular field, not the subject of productivity itself. So I defined the phrase as used in the post.

I do have another post about measuring productivity: http://www.codesimplicity.com/post/measuring-developer-produ...
Ok, that makes more sense
I didn't say it was based on hard data, that's why it's a hypothesis...

But, if you really believe that it's a huge leap to hypothesize that interviews would be a better measure of subjective social skills than metrics like GPA, I don't know what to tell you.
Could this be easily solved with the Z3 theorem prover? Is Z3 an acceptable programming language for this code jam.
Taxes on cars don't even cover the full cost of roads. They don't even begin to cover the negative externalities caused by cars.

Insurance policies only cover damage that is directly attributable to individual drivers like traffic collisions. They don't cover any of the damage caused by air or noise pollution.
Thanks for the pointer ($10/month), did not know this was available without buying a Blackphone.
- there are ~5000 LOC of https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7910/files and almost 3/4 of these lines are tests.

- Segwit actualy block harmful form of ASICBOOST

- by "growing majority" you mean handful of chinese miners and 2% of nodes (http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/softwar...)
>in students' third or fourth year of study it seems short-sighted to expect the bulk of students' learning to happen in live face-to-face lectures.

I'm about to graduate a 4-year Computer Science program. It hasn't generally been necessary in any classes so far to get additional information outside the lectures from the textbooks for me, besides in one online class where there were no lectures, or an instance where the specifics of the virtual machine's language you had to write a compiler for were specified in the textbook - written by the teacher, but free digitally from the campus library, so no big objection in that instance aside from that not being mentioned in the syllabus, and that he could've just put all that in the text file where all the lab-section assignments were defined. But back on track, the general learning of the concept of compilation/parsing/etc occurred in class, and you applied it there. Your notes and the task description were enough.

>Expecting students to learn independently, be it from prerecorded lectures or textbooks, allows classes to cover a lot more ground and (importantly) save lecturer face-time for the task it's actually best suited for: reacting to students' individual needs.

Posting the notes online is great and often necessary, as it was in my algorithms class last semester where long algorithm pseudocode was in the notes, but the way the class worked was that everything was explained in-class, with the premade notes plus running trough things on the chalk board, and only what was in the notes was what you were responsible for. It was an effective format.

>save lecturer face-time for the task it's actually best suited for: reacting to students' individual needs.

People asked questions if they had any, and more explanation would follow, and it wasn't a problem. Taking notes on paper while listening to the lecture in real time has been shown to be very effective compared to alternatives, so using lecture time on that is probably better than leaving any concepts to be learned primarily by textbook reading.

>students can learn at their own pace.

Lecture notes being posted beforehand, as it was in that algorithms class, works for people who feel they're struggling and need to read over the notes before class, and the notes are always there later if you need to review something. Though, the student will have to resist not writing notes just because the notes are already there - aside from the audio-to-paper process's effectiveness in learning, additional explanation/metaphores/comments will be given, especially in response to questions asked. I've almost never seen it be the case that one person holds up a class with questions everyone else knows the answer to - often many others were wondering the same thing, or the answer adds more even if you thought you already knew everything about that specific point. I also think enforcing a certain pace is good - it's happened that I've read on subjects on my own and forgot parts due to going "too fast," but that's never happened in a college class, so it seems like a tradeoff of classes feeling annoyingly slow sometimes.
The NT kernel is not "really" (<-- read that: at all) a microkernel with message passing. The kernel space scope (but not constraints, for example their is no stable kernel/user ABI on NT) is actually very similar to the one of Linux.

And even would it be true, this does not translate in any way into complete Windows systems being more lightweight than complete Linux systems.

As for the supposed academical "superiority", maybe you can explain further in detail on which points?