skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I love calculus, it's such an amazing collection of fascinating, elegant (and useful!) concepts that give you a transformative insight on mathematics in general. It's very frustrating to see it taught so poorly so often though.

One problem that teaching calculus has is that it's very dependent on having a solid foundation in other mathematics such as advanced algebra, trig, etc. In today's school systems that encourage gaming the system as students and teaching to the test as educators it's rare for most students to actually understand or be competent with material they've allegedly studied. When they hit something that starts off where they left off and builds upwards, if they have any weaknesses in that foundation it will show immediately and slow them down immensely.

Add on to that all the other problems of typical calculus instruction such as a desire to make it hard as a matter of protecting calculus education as a status symbol for "smart" people, the ability to ratchet up the difficulty arbitrarily through requiring memorization of a potentially infinite set of "trivia" (every trig. identity, every method of differentiation/integration, and so on), while generally not concentrating on the abstract concepts or the fundamentals.
Gamification Isn’t Always the Right Answer
Sure banks can. Source: did software security for a number of banks. Big banks are chock full o' CSRFs, XSS, SSRFs, and SQLIs. They get found all the time. For every valid report they get, they get 3 that aren't valid. Nobody's hair achieves ignition over this stuff.

There are two types of financial service organizations: the big banks, and random firms (like Zecco was, before Ally bought them).

There's no point in contacting CERT about a Bank of America vulnerability. CERT won't prioritize the report and won't know the right person to talk to, but also, you're a Google search away from finding out who to report to at Bank of America (spoiler: it's Hacker One). These kinds of things don't happen at BofA, not because vulns are hair-on-fire there, but because there's a process in place to handle them.

There's not much point in contacting CERT about a Zecco vulnerability. CERT doesn't know who to contact and doesn't know how to find them and won't spend the time trying. CERT isn't going to publish an unconfirmed report. All CERT is going to do is go to Mitre; you can do that too, and note the guidelines for what will get you a CVE.

The issue here is just TANSTAAFL. It takes a fuckload of effort to triage and confirm vulnerability reports. There's no magic "this is a real vulnerability" certificate you can get CERT or Mitre --- or really anyone who doesn't spend a lot of money to maintain the capability for their own products. If there was, Hacker One wouldn't make half their money selling triage services. :)
You're right about the value of marketing yourself and taking responsibility for your personal brand. People should take that seriously.

Unfortunately, having an HR department mediate the experience for you in a shitty way on your behalf is not a very rewarding experience!
That's a problem for any substantial wealth in securities. Also why Wall Street stock and bond traders exist.
For the use case described it seems like better UX to auto-fill a form via query params than to auto submit it for the user.

I mean that's essentially what it's doing — why bother using a third party service at all?
My question is, who is still working at this place and why???

Also, some reviews here are amusing and frightening:

https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Theranos-Reviews-E248889.h...
Successful "gaming" and "advancing your career" means you have figured out how to work the organization to achieve objectives...that means you know when you are a go-getter, a driver, a supporter, a smoother, a leader :)
>That simply can't be fair.

This word "fair" keeps being thrown about in these discussions.

All such discussions are useless unless the people involved specify what they mean by "fair". And I'll give you a hint: You'll find many people will disagree with your definition (and there isn't consensus on any one definition).

A simple example: Fairness in equality vs fairness in proportion. The former is about everyone having equal services/wealth/etc (usually aligned with far left), and the latter is about everyone having these in proportion to their efforts (usually aligned with far right).

Neither is right or wrong.

High wealth inequality, while often correlated with lower opportunities, does not fundamentally imply it - it is not a causation. Using it as a metric is a poor choice. Instead, the metric should be what the lowest N% have access to, regardless of the wealth inequality. You can get low wealth inequality where everything is bad for everyone, or high wealth inequality where only a few "suffer".

Just saying something is "unfair" without explanation is merely an attempt at making an emotional argument. It is identical to just saying something is "wrong".
He was doing that job in 1934. The world has changed a lot since then. Of course there is still need for routine jobs in Antarctica too (janitors, cooks etc.). However, there is a long list of applicants who want to go to Antarctica. You might enjoy [1].

[1] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2361700/
I've been experimenting with https://deeplearning4j.org/ It doesn't seem to be very popular but i was testing it and it does seem to work well.
> "X causes Y" is separate and can be proven separately from "X causes Y by Z mechanism". The former seems to have been proven here.

The experimenters changed the environment and noted a change in behavior. This isn't enough to be able to say which aspect of the change induced the behavioral change, in particular because the study isn't testing a theory, or a cause. It's testing an effect -- the outcome of an environmental change.

This is something that Richard P. Feynman described in some detail in his now-famous talk entitled "Cargo Cult Science." He describes a number of social science studies that went off the rails because the experimenters were too quick to draw conclusions based on experiments the investigators didn't really understand. As a counterpoint he describes one outstanding experiment in which the experimenter went to great lengths to find out why a certain effect took place. Feynman's point was that science requires great care that we don't draw conclusions not sufficiently informed by skepticism.

http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm

To summarize, to be able to claim a cause -- effect relationship, we would need to understand the cause -- we would need a falsifiable theory about why a change took place, not merely that there was a change.
Good luck--- I built a service that did very 'light' scraping and it was forced to shut down. I imagine your days are numbered.
New Hampshire, Maine and Vermont are struggling with a worker shortage
> for a complicated reason I can explain if anyone's interested

PoS?
For those just getting started on building languages here is a beginners tutorial I created, using JS and Ohm. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pubnub.com/blog/2016-09-26-...
Cool data. What happened in January 2017?
You're assuming that the occupants will have control of the things. Once you leave the ground autopilot gets a lot easier as you have more space/visibility and fewer random obstacles. And a car is going to be just as dangerous to you flying off the road into the side of your house as one falling from the sky slowed slightly by a parachute.
Also available in Info format, for easy browsing and searching from within Emacs:

http://www.neilvandyke.org/sicp-texi/
> I have many years of programming in Java under my belt. Until I started using dynamic languages I thought static typing was really important. It's not.

Static typing is useful, especially in large projects, if it provides the right guarantees.

OTOH, whether it does that depends on the type system. Go, Java, Pony, Rust, and Haskell are all static, but their type systems offer very different capacities. If you have a type system that has a lot of ceremony, and fails to provide the guarantees that are actually needed in your project, it's a pure burden. If it's low-ceremony and provides guarantees important to your project, it's a clear, undiluted benefit. Reality often falls somewhere in between.
At Instamotor we use Elastic Search, Redis, and S3 for files/photos. In my previous job (Nest), we looked at a decent number of options and ended up going with Cassandra.
Java's virtual by default methods has never been an issue for me. On the other hand, some clown making their classes and methods final has been a recurring thorn.

David Bacon's Kava's approach to lightweight objects remains the correct answer and is sorely missed.

The only case for unchecked exception is mitigating terrible design choices. Like using Spring or Hibernate/JPA. When the client code can't do anything with a caught exception, it shouldn't even be thrown. Meaning, they're doing it wrong.

The omission of signed integers has caused me unnecessary pain a few times. Original bindings for OpenGL, a DICOM parser, etc.

--

Properties are the one C# feature sorely missed in Java. JavaBeans is silly.

Syntactic sugar for reflection would be nice, maybe something like 'Method m = myClass#myMethod( String )'.

Java has done plenty of terrible things, crimes against productivity and design rationality. Chiefly annotations, lambdas, and the silly Optional. C#'s equivalent quixotic fever dream is probably LINQ.

I have a laundry list for Java, JDK (especially), and JVM. Who doesn't? Mostly undoing bad ideas and culling deprecated stuff, plus some sugar to reduce the verbosity.

--

Unfortunately, Java's language is hard to separate from its culture. The taint of all the enterprise minded stuff (XML XSD etc, J2EE, Spring, excess indirection caused by design pattern newbies) has been hard to shake off.
But gondolas are slow.
I've been coding professionally for 30 years. And programming isn't really much different now than it was 30 years ago. The tools are better, yes. But we're still sitting at desks in front of a screen, entering code into computers as text, with keyboards.

Perhaps there will be a threshold reached where suddenly that goes away. But I'm not holding my breath.
I'd be willing to bet that it's not just physicians though. Lab staff on the back-end who actually do the work don't have the same rigor of training as medical doctors do.
> But the evidence supports the idea that social isolation induces measurable changes in behavior and neural activity.

The experiment showed a change in behavior resulting from a change in environment. There's no cause proposed that rises above opinion and conjecture. To be able to say why the change took place, we would need a falsifiable theory that offers an explanation, not just a description, which is all this study provides.

Further reading: http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm
Bad Blood http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5795144/
He also called it an angel investment. As in 1/10 or 1/20 chance at profitability, and less than that at long term sustainability. Though at this point I'd consider buying bitcoin equivalent to buying stock in a company with a promising product but some major obstacles to achieving its vision. It could go to the moon if things work out (Facebook). It could muddle along if it has a brilliant idea but major internal problems (Twitter). It could go to zero if people lose interest, lose faith, or an amazing competitor comes along (Yahoo search).
That guy is always doing mindblowing cool stuff. I propose renaming him from Linus Åkesson to Linus Awesome :-)
Someone in another forum commented recently that there should be a new top-line federal agency whose mission is to promote the security of America's information infrastructure. They suggested it should be established as an adversarial check/balance against e.g., the CIA and NSA.

https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/839168025517522944

Maybe if they were required by statute to accept anonymous submissions and make FOIA-style responsible disclosures after a reasonably short period of time, they wouldn't end up colluding right away.
Okay, no money was hyperbole. It makes some money. But in the large cap tech space, it's a pittance. Apple probably makes more money on sales of the iPhone 6S.

It's 10% of their business and yet it makes them the more money than the other 90%. What does that say about the overall business? Any other company that operated with similar fundamentals would get skewered. But because it's Amazon, they get a pass.
Thanks. Will definitely check it out. What is the assumed background for the students?
A lot of commenters here are treating this announcement like it is the end of Lustre. It is not. Lustre has a LONG history and a lot of deployments. A partial history:

1999: Lustre is started as a research project at Carnegie Mellon University
2001: Cluster File Systems, Inc. founded to commercialize Lustre
2007: Sun acquires Cluster File Systems
2010: Oracle buys Sun Microsystems, acquires Lustre assets
2010: Eric Barton leaves Oracle and founds Whamcloud, continues Lustre dev there
2012: Intel buys Whamcloud for its Lustre assets
2013: Oracle sells Lustre-related assets to Xyratex
2013: Intel tries to extend Lustre to Hadoop use-cases
2014: Seagate buys Xyratex
2017: Intel discontinues its Lustre Filesystem business

I seem to remember IBM and HP being involved at some stage, but I'm having trouble finding it online now.

The only serious open-source competitors to Lustre are Ceph and glusterfs. But Ceph is too unstable, and glusterfs 3.0 is based off of distributed hash tables and so is not strongly consistent.
I don't think it's logically possible to make Firefox as extensible as it is, and also "secure" as Chrome.

Chrome is crippled in many ways. Extensions are second class citizens, merely along for the ride. They can be removed remotely at Google's whim, and you can't rely on them to run reliably. They also don't have full access to the browser the way Firefox add-ons do.

Among my different profiles, I have profiles to slice and dice the web. I can do a ton of web scraping without having to write any scripts. I can do a ton of cool stuff, and customize Firefox the way I want. Firefox gives me cheatcodes to the web.

Who the hell said extensions had to be sandboxed? That's an overly cautious decision that makes sense for Google. It's a WEAKNESS. It's a COMPROMISE that Google had to make with Chrome. It is not a strength.

The iOS app store makes money for Apple. So does that mean we must copy the weaknesses of the iOS app store? That's cargo cult thinking.
Ok, fair point...I see that.
It is a result of a test driven education system. Young people want feedback more often to feel secure in their actions.
Some free associations:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgGU8Vy3xoc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLIi_ZMBfQs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d38xbAFnCSQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hamT4XESYG0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQWCUXNsUyQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LY-9cGBdxNw&list=PL8kGLx6Th4...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EM251rMyfUg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oBl0xq16G0
Yeah, my first thought was "this board looks great for testing big-endian". Would be nice to see comparisons to e.g. the G5.
That was a trick suggestion. Also while dealing with flying the airplane, also be sure to keep track of whether the landing pattern is clockwise, or counter-clockwise, or was it clockwise, and which heading you are currently on and how that relates to your rejected landing turn in case you need it, which you probably will. I don't see what could possibly go wrong.

All I'll say is if I was the head of the programming committee for the air transport association conference, I would invite the designer to keynote, as comic relief.
> Also, how can people be that stupid? You have to know the truth will eventually come out?

People quite often think they can get away with things that, it turns out, they can't. The fact that something is true does not mean that people must believe it.
We use Pithos (S3-compatible API, Cassandra backend) pretty successfully.
You have to admit, though, it does take a fresh thinker to be able to maintain this scale of scam. Just not a scientific prodigy.
Airplanes have been around a long time. Commercial aviation is much safer than general aviation, and that's with everyone being a trained pilot.

With airplanes, simple things like running out of fuel can be fatal. Yes, it happens. [1]

There are small airplanes with parachutes [2]. It's a big safety advance, but it still doesn't always help. You still need training in when to pull the parachute.

[1] http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/12/why-would-a-pilot-let-h...
[2] https://cirrusaircraft.com/innovation/airframe-parachute/
I had a misunderstanding with Google earth vs maps. I used Google maps in Firefox just fine, and that is what I meant earlier.

I was unaware even of the existence of a web based version of Earth. The last time I used Google earth was as a desktop client. That was back when I worked in the Air Force Weather Wing almost a year ago. Have they done away with the desktop client?

Starting over with whether or not this is anticompetitive; who are they repressing by giving away free software that runs on other free software? Does this software need to be used?

This all seems to hinge around this part of what you are saying:

> When you release software that only works on your platform that you aren't open to outside comments on, then you are forcing others to implement it, warts and all, or lose users.

The option to lose users here is huge. How is this different than microsoft making excel and only supporting it on windows? I choose not to use excel at least in part because it doesn't run on any platform I care to use. I feel I should clarify here, I don't condone this obnoxious behavior from microsoft or Google. I think it is wrong from the stance that all software should inter-operate smoothly and be open source, but it doesn't seem illegal or even unethical.

The answer for a users to both Earth and excel seems to be to use some other competing software. For mapping software something like openstreetmap or even some other Google software like Google maps (or even a pay for solution). For spreadsheets I use libreoffice.

Even if this is anti-competitive it seems so minor that it dilutes the meaning of the term. Lumping this in with things like the Dr DOS fiasco just doesn't seem right. For reference in the Dr DOS times there was a DOS competitor to microsoft's DOS. Dr DOS was a relatively bug free DOS and it worked fine with windows until the 3.0 release (I think). Until this specific version/patch started intermittently causing windows to not run if Dr DOS was detected even though it was advertised as working. The end result was Dr DOS being run out of business because it looked like a bug in Dr DOS and sometime ms even claimed such. The Dr DOS team was very overtly fucked by ms.

Nothing about most of the things brought up in this thread seems overt. No money is being paid for web browsers or this mapping software. Having users takes significant effort to monetize. It seems detached from web standards in any direct way (I agree it indirectly relates to webassembly, but not in a way that seems legally relevant). Most of it seems like engineers being engineers and fixing their own little slice of the world and hoping everyone works with their stuff because they don't want to change. Shortsighted and imperfect just like most humans.

Thank you for taking the time to explain (and listen) to me in a rational and level headed way. I won't be checking my messages here again until I start another build or boring process tomorrow. Have an upvote.
Charlie Munger on Google's Economic Moat (2009)
True, but if you want to maximize a refund without a re-filing, this might be one way people justify the decision.
Gamers hate dropped frames. They can also easily ruin multiplayer games.
Smart Credit Card Startup Plastc Took $9 Mil in Preorders – And Just Shut Down
well, to be fair, if they cashed out and then sued as well then that would be double dipping a bit right?
Who exactly are you "competing" against? This isn't a competition. Linux is not inferior because it isn't Windows.

The early days of Firebird were not spent trying to match the features of Internet Explorer!
Internet Explorer offered some superior features that Mozilla could never match. It even had awful custom CSS rules, that let websites do things like change the color of scrollbars.

Firebird focused on making a fully standards compliant browser, and then success found it, when the public got sick of Microsoft. And maybe that won't happen this time around, but so what?? This is just hubris on the part of Mozilla, at this point.

I'm horrified at what would have happened, if in 2006, everyone had rolled up their sleeves to bring ActiveX support to Firebird on par with IE6. Is that what you think would have worked?? Microsoft would always be several steps ahead of you.

This is tilting at windmills.
Appel's Modern compiler implementation in ML is really good, as both an introduction to compilers and some detail on implementing the runtime i.e. garbage collection. There are versions for C and Java, but ML is much easier to read in a book.

If you want a (slightly ugly) encyclopedia of compiler optimisations and IR designs, then Steven Muchnick's Advanced compiler design and implementation is great.

Also, on the functional front SPJ's book (https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/the-imp...) is really good.

While unfinished, Write You a Haskell is also a really interesting read.
> As I understand it, this article is about a controlled experiment. In which case there is no confounding and therefore correlation implies causation.

Without a testable, falsifiable theory -- an explanation, correlations don't --
can't -- imply a cause-effect relationship. Not in a scientific sense, anyway. If I say that puddles cause rain, people will laugh. But if I say I performed a controlled experiment in a very large building like the VAB at Cape Canaveral in which I produce puddles and the puddles really do cause the subsequent rain, but I omit the details (or simply don't understand my own result), I get the last laugh. It's true, but it's not science unless there's a theoretical dimension, not just a description. It's not science unless I understand my result.
Things that have CLR-like generics work on the CLR. Anything else doesn't. E.g. Scala.
All clients has a copy of the git repo plus a server on Digital Ocean.
Well the stakes are a lot lower when it's social media or something. Theranos' problem was that it tried to take the Silicon Valley mentality to medicine, and as we've seen there's a little agency called the FDA that doesn't give a damn how hot or well funded you are. They will crush you into dust if you try to play games.
Disagree. Any big company can be sufficiently ignorant, but Hackerone and Marten Mickos both have a brand name associated with them, partially due to their funding: https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/hackerone#/entity

I think the disclosure assistance is a pretty clever idea for generating new sales leads, since by definition they will be talking to companies with an actual zero day situation.
I remember in the 90s being a teenager reading Boies brilliant work shredding the Microsoft monopoly with such overwhelming skill, and he was almost a hero of mine. Since then I've realized he's just a hired gun, a genius with no morals or integrity who's in it for the money and nothing else. What a disappointment.