skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Many are taught by experienced developers. It would be hard to know for sure, but I would guess that all would be.

I have friends that have been through four different programs. All of those had serious long term developers teaching.

It is true that they have "beginners/ex-boot-camp grads" available as MENTORS not teachers. There is a HUGE difference.

Yeah they may teach a feature, but "the teacher" is still in the room.

It's super easy to tell, just read the "bio's" of the teacher. If it says 10+ years as a developer, you're fine.
Strong disagree. North Korea is a disastrous country run by a truly evil government. However, it does not perform the role you suggest. We merely look on it from the outside in, with all of our small and little prejudices, and selectively picked historical knowledge. From such a vantage point, authoritarian always seems wrong. From the outside, it's trivial to understand and trivial to criticize. From within, from a perspective where authoritarianism has hijacked our own cultural values, our own patriotism, our own media, our cultural history, and historical stories, where the truth is always disputed and considered unpleasant to discuss in social gatherings, where friends and families really believe in it, criticism becomes far more difficult. What we need is both fictional and nonfiction insight into what it's like to experience authoritarianism firsthand, not picture-book,elementary school level accounts of how evil North Korea is. I recommend Umberto Eco's Ur-Fascism, Orwell's Politics and the English Language, and the play Rhinoceros by Eugene Ionesco as starting examples.
"Then there's people like me who like sports and don't like the programming on ESPN."

Do you watch PTI ?

I think PTI is the best show on TV.

EDIT: PTI = Pardon the Interruption
I'd be more interested in seeing the maximum amount of individual op-codes CLang and GCC can output for x86_64. I suspect there are many they don't use because their either obsolete, unnecessary or for very specific operations such as those used by video codecs.
We have built a reporting engine for PDFs on top of LaTeX; data is loaded using SQL, pre-processed with JavaScript if neccessary and then rendered using pdflatex.

Works great and is fast, but I wouldn't do it again (thinking about using CSS3 + print properties for that).
The Windows CE devices I saw had color screens with a comically narrow viewing angle, incredibly huge batteries that lasted a hilariously short amount of time, and required a fussy little pen to use since most operations could not be done by keyboard alone.

I'm not saying it was totally useless, or that people didn't find it "fine" for some tasks, but it was like a crippled notebook that could barely do any of those things. The only advantage it had was size, and even then it still weighed vastly more than any of the phones from that era. They still cost a small fortune, maybe half the cost of a decent laptop, but since they weren't a laptop or a phone you still had to get one of those anyway.

Compare with two competitors from that time, Danger Hiptop and Sharp Zaurus, took a very different approach: Keyboard centric, good battery life, limited functionality but focusing on specific things rather than trying to do everything.
No MBA was EVER designed for the R&D part of building a company. I'm constantly surprised at the myth that an MBA has anything to do with teaching you to start or even run a company. MBA's are designed to train middle managers because the modern "firm" realized great middle managers were really valuable (aka they'd pay them a lot) but hard and risky to train. That's where the MBA program comes from.

MBA's are ANTITHETICAL to entrepreneurship. That doesn't mean an MBA doesn't have value towards starting a company, just like a degree in economics or history aren't irrelevant to starting a company. But it's not what it's for, in fact, it's for the opposite thing.
The Metaphysics of Causation
Detailing Amazon’s Custom-Clothing Patent
Mildly relevant: http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/citations-needed
Wow, I am surprised and intrigued! Last time I took a graduate math class was 1995. It was definitely pencil and paper.
I skipped to his last paragraph or two, which in only a few hundred words summed up his point. Your sentence is much better -- this man seems to think that he's far more intelligent than the rest of us, and yet he admits to being a Marxist.

I find this to be interesting, since every real-world instantiation of anything resembling Marxism has resulted in widespread famine and poverty. I practice engineering, which deals in applications, and I find it difficult to understand those who cling to a theory without concern for how well practical applications of the theory work out. That's an attitude of willful ignorance, which doesn't strike me as particularly intelligent ... but maybe that's just because I'm so far below his level :).
Only in the US. In the EU, they're registered as a Luxembourg-based bank.

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20070515005225/en/PayP...
Also no explicit register move instruction, it's ADDI rd,rs1,0. NOP is ADDI x0,x0,0.
Clayton Christensen, Harvard Business School prof, has promoted a tax structure that has much lower taxes on investments that last multiple years (say 5), and higher taxes on short-term investment (less than a year) as a way to incentivize long-term R&D. I like this as a mechanism to change the way MBAs think about profit and investment. I.e., as something that I'd love to see more at Harvard get behind.
You should have programmers implement paxos on a whiteboard in their interviews.
Don't be silly, the guy is a constructor. He did make money by creating value, which a -well planned building- is a prime example of.
The "deals" are to create a lot of value with as fewer resources as you can.
No, you can't use a mouse on iOS without jail breaking.

The closest thing is the X1 Mouse and that only works on Citrix.[0]

Ethernet yes, keyboard yes, mouse, no.

[0] https://www.citrix.com/products/citrix-mouse/support.html
I totally agree. I'm interviewing someone tomorrow morning, and I plan to give them a simple finite state machine problem in C. Full open book (i.e. access to the web), and they're free to compile and run as many times as they want. You’d be surprised how many candidates can't implement something as simple as fizzbuzz.
Where "suckers" are people that don't like what you like?

I like to travel so I would rather take the $1000 voucher than wait for a cash offer that someone like you would jump on before I could get a chance.

I've taken in over $5,000 of free air travel over the years and always used it to visit family and see places I wouldn't have otherwise. In the meantime people thinking like you got nothing because it was a "sucker's" deal.

I suggest you look into the study of economics and pricing to understand how people can get different levels of value from things. The you might understand why auction systems like that aren't magically lining your pockets with gold.
Oh please. Traveling is tiring for most people, especially with TSA and the hectic mess that is airports, and the severe discomfort of modern airplace seating; I don't know many people who really want to fly somewhere on a Friday evening right after work (meaning you get to your hotel somewhere around midnight if you're lucky, and you have to skip dinner) and return on a Sunday (meaning you get home late, leaving you exhausted for work on Monday).
No, you just have to be left leaning for those news outlets to grab your attention. I also read them occasionally but pretty much avoid the NYT now or just read through the lines.
lol. Any meat to this ? A specific feature missing in pstgres that makes it worth spending a few hundred thousand on oracle ?
Sleeping consists of doing nothing. But you are still breathing, so it's not nothing. I would say watching TV often qualifies as wasting time.
I think of closures as a bit orthogonal to that; the definition of "closure" that I'm used to is a function that "encloses" some data that is not an argument (somewhat like a function with free variables in lambda calculus), whereas a callback might only deal with its arguments. That being said, sometimes I see the term "closure" being used in a way that I associate with the word "lambda", which feels a bit off to me (I'm looking at you, Rust...)
HP Chrome Print fuckup du jour
The idea of a 600mph train running in evacuated tunnels is about as old as the idea of trains itself: http://io9.gizmodo.com/5731620/in-an-alternate-universe-ther...

China is looking at building something like that: http://www.zdnet.com/article/china-developing-600-mph-airles...

Note that it's an above-ground system because the costs of building underground are utterly ridiculous for long distances.
Quite generous, referring to him as a philosopher. I mistook his 'philosophy' for a bad case of verbal diarrhea. I think he could benefit from George Orwell's rules:

(i) Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.

(ii) Never use a long word where a short one will do.

(iii) If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.

(iv) Never use the passive where you can use the active.

(v) Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.

(vi) Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.
Duals has the right flavor, but my opinion is just an opinion, i won't try to defend that with any kind of formalism duals would imply.

I agree with you wrt objects bundle data and functions, but for my code, that sometimes causes cracks, disagreements about how i mentally model the code vs how i have to write it out. For example the visitor pattern is this little syntactic boilerplate dance to get a specific kind of behavior collected in one file. The closure way, you can build a special dispatch, and put all the implementations there.

I don't think there's a right answer. I just go along with what i think people will understand. There's a lot of value in having a standard and well understood dispatch system we all understand, even if it gets sort of odd in some cases.

With the closures, dispatching can be as crazy as you want. Create cycles of A extends B, B extends C, and C extends A for example.
Are you talking about Very Long Instruction Words (VLIW)? IIRC, that's the concept of having the scheduling done in the compiler. Instead of the compiler spitting out op codes and operands, each part of the instruction space controls specific functional units. So if you stick something in the adder, the documentation might specify the next x instructions need to be nops so it can complete.

The idea being if scheduling is done at compile time, you can update the compiler and update the scheduling/performance. Unfortunately, creating compilers for these systems was incredibly difficult, hence the failure of ix64/EPIC.
Efficient? You’re too generous. I’d call them short-sighted, or even go as far as to call them looters: they are people who gut companies (again, the word “optimize” is too generous!) to boost short-term profits and line their pockets at the expensive of long-term viability in ways you mentioned (cutting out R&D, building of product, etc.)
I also make one of these (I don't write the articles but I aggregate them): www.glitchet.com
I know it's cynical but it feels like the term "labour shortage" is just a way of complaining about not being able to find desperate laborers at bottom dollar. Here in Canada, I've seen plenty of job ads that were more or less "we have job, come work here". It's like they don't even try and then proceed to step 2: complain about the labor supply. I can only image that the situation is a lot worse in a country that overworks it's people as much as Japan.
eMMC 5.1 (introduced in Jan 2015) has read speeds up to 250 MB/s and write speeds up to 125 MB/s. They're much faster than the earlier eMMC chips, as well as laptop hard drives. Sadly, the early slow chips kind of gave them a bad reputation. They're perfectly workable now for a low-end machine.
As Scala didn't yet exist when this message was written, its author was missing the enlightenment Scala provides.

Would you please explain what about this amuses Scala programmers?
Erlang is an amazing language for learning how to effectively use OOP principles. I feel like anyone who works primarily with class-based languages owes it to themselves to write a few server-like modules in Erlang even if they never touch the language again.
Ugh, please don't make unfounded claims like that.
This is the wrong way to go about it. x86 mnemonics bear little resemblance to the encoded binary machine code. For example, what x86 lumps into a single "mov" mnemonic, is actually half a dozen different underlying instructions, e.g load, store, reg-reg, and a few special cases.

It's the wrong question too. Perhaps what you're looking for is: "What is the number of combinations in which an instruction can be decoded?" This would need to lump together all the multi-bit fields (such as immediates) as one (or a few if there's special values). This would be a measure of the expressivity of instruction set, and somewhat a measure of the encoding efficiency — how much it can cover the execution unit inputs?

It's a much easier thing to answer for most of the "RISC" oriented architectures, e.g ARM 32 and 64 bit. It's basically the set of valid binary encodings of instructions, compressing together all the immediate values.
.Net now has a non-hierarchical version of this:

http://mattwarren.org/2016/08/16/Preventing-dotNET-Garbage-C...
From what little I know of F#, it seems a lot like OCaml (as in, I don't know enough to know of any differences, other than that F# is a .NET language). From what slightly more I know about OCaml, objects are there, but almost nobody uses them and everyone pretends that they're not in the language. Is F# similar in this regard, or are objects considered fair game?
Libvirt is a mess, when something could have been made simple Libvirt opted for extensibility instead and it shows in the code.
Is the problem that the "stanford disruptors" are sticking to offering value as a payments facilitator/money transmitter and not trying to move up the value chain and get some banking licences? I assume this would be orders of magnitude more difficult but I really want to see it happen somewhere in the world!
Sanctions are always better than war. People adapt. Or negotiate their way out. Just look at Iran.

Free market in NK? Maybe free as in the state is too busy caring right now and market as in flea market.
What does a university do with a $32.7 billion endowment?
Around the time this article came out I was looking at business opportunities for some under-employed friends and it seemed like a cafe would be a good idea. We knew the neighbourhoods where it would work, we knew people that were worth hiring, they all had restaurant experience, and as for the supplier side, that was never a problem.

Once I started researching it wasn't hard to hit nightmare after nightmare story. You can do everything perfectly right and still bust out. You can do everything totally wrong and strike it rich. It's such a gamble you may as well take your money down to the casino and play roulette.

Not starting a business like that was probably the best idea. For one, I still have those friends, and two, didn't end up bankrupting myself by stubbornly sticking it out, or getting destroyed when the landlord, smelling opportunity, starts jacking up the rent to the moon.

We have it so easy in the tech biz. You can compete with everyone in the world, and you can do it from anywhere in the world. Being nailed down to a physical location in a very specific niche is problematic if you're used to being able to operate nimbly, to jump from opportunity to opportunity.
It does seem like Jensen was key in evangelizing ideas that tied executive compensation to stock performance. This even led to a 1993 IRS rule [1]. Here "value" was clearly shareholder value; the dollar value of stock.

Then, in 2000, on the verge of the Enron collapse, Jensen offered an updated theory - "Value Maximization and the Corporate Objective Function" [2]. Here, he suggested that the definition of "value" perhaps needed to evolve, and consider stakeholders. However, I'm not sure this later work had the impact of changing executive compensation, or corporate decision-making, probably just created debate.

Probably feels something like not being able to fix a bug in production..

"Undeniably one of the most influential business theorists of modern times, he (Michael Jensen) advocated an “agency” theory of management in which management’s sole duty was to maximize shareholder value. This upended the long-held “stakeholder” model, in which management was seen as having broader obligations to a corporation’s workers, customers and communities."

Wikipedia [1]: "After Jensen and Murphy (1990), Congress passed a law, making it cost effective to pay executives in equity. As a result, executives had a financial incentive to focus their efforts on increasing stock price. In the short run, some executives even manipulated accounting numbers (e.g., Enron, Global Crossing) to achieve this goal"

HBS '00 [3]: Jensen, new theory of Enlightened Value Maximization: "We must give people enough structure to understand what maximizing value means so that they can be guided by it and therefore have a chance to actually achieve it. They must be turned on by the vision or the strategy in the sense that it taps into some human desire or passion of their own—for example, a desire to build the world’s best automobile or to create a film or play that will move people for centuries. All this can be not only consistent with value seeking, but a major contributor to it.

And this brings us up against the limits of value maximization per se. Value seeking tells an organization and its participants how their success in achieving a vision or in implementing a strategy will be assessed. But value maximizing or value seeking says nothing about how to create a superior vision or strategy. Nor does it tell employees or managers how to find or establish initiatives or ventures that create value. It only tells them how we will measure success in their activity."

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_C._Jensen
[2] http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/00-058_f2896b...
[3] http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/value-maximization-and-stakeholder...
Ask HN: Have you been bullied by AWS to shut down your servers?
In the source he says its command-click:

* - see if we can do anything to one-button-ise the multi-button
* dependent puzzle UIs:
* - Pattern is a _little_ unwieldy but not too bad (since
*	generally you never need the middle button unless you've
*	made a mistake, so it's just click versus command-click).
+1 for SlingTV with the sports addons for CFB. I subscribe in August and cancel in February every year. It even gets you an ESPN login so you don't have to use Sling's app.
Oh please, cramped seats? Use the voucher for economy comfort or first class. Have dinner in the airport if it's that inconveniently timed.

We went on weekend trips when I was little that involved driving for 4 hours each way. Most people aren't as pathetic as you are portraying.
my bad.. just found about plv8, and will experiment with it and jsonb on future projects.

[ pg installs I work with are invariably running on linux, so all good. ]
The point that I would stress is that 2-player and n-player zero-sum games have very different properties.

2-player zero-sum games are interesting because it's one of the few cases where game theory makes a unique prediction. In general 2-player games there can be multiple Nash equilibria, and the theory does not tell us which one will be chosen. In a zero-sum 2-player game, the only equilibrium strategies are the minimax-ones, which can be directly computed. Also, by inspecting the minimax strategies we can tell that there is no possibility of bargains, there is no role for cheap talk, etc etc. This is where the informal connotations of a "zero sum game" comes from: it's dog-eat-dog and cold hard randomness.

But in n-player games, assuming that the payoffs sum to zero does not lead to any particularly interesting consequences. Any general n-player game can be encoded as a zero-sum (n+1)-player game[0], so all the general subtleties of game theory comes back into play.

For example, consider n pirates that need to split a chest of gold. The sum of payoffs is fixed (it's the number of coins), but still there is a large rule for "politics", i.e. talk to form coalitions, etc. There are a lot of Nash equilibria of the "the three of us gang up on the two of them", and no way a priori to figure out which one will be chosen.

[0] http://people.csail.mit.edu/costis/6853fa2011/lec3.pdf
The C++ family of languages isn't really all that object-oriented; it's practically a different (static, class-oriented) paradigm that takes some inspiration from OOP (mostly from Smalltalk) but more from C's particular implementation of statically-typed procedural programming, as a result they are based around structs-enhanced-with-methods rather than proper objects.
I've always found the habit of eating at one's desk almost insulting.

It is not about the annoyances that at-the-desk-eaters create for their immediate surroundings. Eating creates noise and smell pollution. I don't want to smell your tacos, and I don't want to hear the scratching of a spoon in an empty joghurt cup.

It is also not the thought about hygienic implications. Lots of the food consumed at desks is finger food. I've grown up getting taught to wash hands before eating and to use knife and spoon. The thought that someone changes between food and operating the keyboard, a piece that has been proven to be dirtier than toilet seats, is unsettling.

No, it is the fact that the person sees eating as a mindless task that can be done _while working_ that bothers me most. As if it was filling up gas at the pump. No, eating to me has two dimensions that these cultureless creatures spurn: that food is, next to breathing and sleeping, one of the most important things that keep you alive. You liteeally are what you eat. Your body tells you very directly what it needs and how much. But you got to listen to it while you're eating. It is already a series of sensations that require being mindful. Just think of the texture, smell, and taste of a leaf of basil. Of olive oil. Of fresh fish. Wonderful.

The other side is that eating is a social endeavour. It is an opportunity to bond and build empathy. It's an opportunity to relax and get good ideas as a team. Also to exchange information. I would say those of our team that go out for lunch regularly are more successful than the ones who don't.

So, I think eating at the desk while working is wrong in many dimensions. Taking a walk is definitely a good idea, too.
It's mostly tied up in investments.
They're both wrong. Closures and Objects are both structures with function pointers and delusions of grandeur.
HTML is infinitely easier to memorize than LaTeX, and Github-Flavored-Markdown is easier still. If they had math notation (Mathjax integration with GFM is still not there), I think they would eliminate 95% of the need for LaTeX.