skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
When you are trying to invent a new version of anything low level, sometimes it makes sense for you to just stub out a supporting library out with a naive implementation, because you then have an interface that you can move around easily. If you are wrapping an existing implementation, with lots of optimizations and corner cases, you'll just get bogged down in refactoring all of those expectations over and over.

Today I implemented an immutable-ish array in JavaScript. I'm using it because I needed something that could work in conjunction with the non-relational, non-key-value database I am building. There were other libraries that provided immutable arrays, probably much better than my implementation. But because I wrote both the immutable data structure and the database, and both implementations are naive, I can very easily trade functionality back and forth between them in order to get the interface right where it needs to be.

There's a good chance I'll then swap out my data store for some existing algorithm, but I really won't know which algorithm I even need until after I've built several applications on top of the naive implementation.

Really, the key here is that this is prototyping. When you're building a prototype, you don't do the thing that will lead to the most correct code, you do the thing that will teach you the most about what the design should be.
The downvotes are probably because Oracle is off topic, and you can add an opcode to OpenJDK and even blog about it if you so desire.
At large state universities pay is good. It goes down dramatically when looking st regional state universities and community colleges. Also over 50% of higher education is taught by non-tenured or tenure track faculty. Pay for such workers is low and frequently don't include benefits.
The title should be "hospital patients treated by low volume physicians are more likely to die". But that would have been less likely to get published. The "high volume" group was also really NOT high volume: 200 patients per year is around 4 patients per week. So the study really tells us about very 'low volume' providers compared to slightly higher volume providers, it's interesting that that was enough to get rid of any age-related effect. That in turn suggests the effect was pretty small.

Similarly, I'm pretty sure that "code written by programmers who don't program often is more likely to have bugs", and "pilots who don't fly often are more likely to crash".

(Strictly speaking, you'd want to normalize the risk of bugs / crashes per some unit of output e.g. per hour flown for pilots.)
A new algorithm for finding a visual center of a polygon
> Doing so in a structured way, more elegant than writing more parsers and compilers in C, sounds like a good idea.

http://www.gbresearch.com/axe/
Once I read the article on messaging security, and non-standard clients were mentioned there as another serious attack vector. If you have only one client controlled by service provider, it is somewhat easier to reason about its quality. But if your peer can have any client, then your conversation is at risk, because your peer may not be hygienic enough, so exploit message may be sent to it from another contact and that will send all conversations to third party. E.g. though xmpp/otr is somewhat secure by itself, random security-unaware xmpp clients (tons of these) are a big concern.

The weakness of the chain is still defined by its weakest link. This is the case where it is maybe better to put all eggs in one basket and choose/validate entire baskets, not particular eggs.

I'm not a security expert, but that sounds reasonable imo.
Financial aid, scholarships, and Federal loans (to an extent) help a lot for sure.
The new logical replication feature is based on the experiences from BDR and pglogical, but it isn't multimaster yet.
Google has a very nice suite of optimization tools, including an integer programming solver and a constraint solver, for third party use. Docs here: https://developers.google.com/optimization/ I got a chance to use it at work lately and it really is magical how you input a problem description and it outputs a solution.

The documentation is hit or miss in some cases. MPSolver is pretty well documented. The more powerful constraint solver . . . well, I have no idea how to use the SA or Tabu search features, and minimal confidence that I'm doing anything correctly, except that it seems to emit correct-ish answers.
Might be thinking of Etsy, they (are/were?) PHP
It's perfect, because there is one impossible plot device in the real world. The attention to detail used to accomplish that is very appealing to me. It's my very favorite aspect of the show.
> I would have assumed that coming to terms with a lack of control was one of the first things a fighter pilot would have to learn to deal with.

I think it wasn't just the lack of control; it was the inability to do anything to regain control. My father was a test pilot; there were plenty of times where his airplane did something unexpected and he lost control. But he always had some option for regaining it. (In the last extremity, he could eject--which he actually had to in one test flight. I noticed that the lack of that option in an airliner was mentioned in the article.)

Also, this was a situation where, as the pilot said, he could easily have kept control of the plane, if only the plane had let him. But the plane was listening to the computers instead of him. To me, if you're going to have highly trained humans in the cockpit, it doesn't make sense not to give them a last-dicth way of telling the airplane to stop listening to the computers and start listening to them.
> I think the real solution is, as I said above, to give the human pilot a last-ditch way of regaining complete manual control of the plane.

This was my point all along, there is no such thing as "manual control" anymore. It's all a big system working in concert, even moving the control surfaces. And as systems get more complicated, and start to require faster than human response speeds, it will be even less "manual control".
I get (and agree) with your point but aren't they making it harder than other coins here by limiting the pre-sale to accredited investors?
Inversion: The Crucial Thinking Skill Nobody Ever Taught You
They are going to have a well practiced ability to analyze text, data and other sources and understand, critique or respond to arguments presented.

Liberal arts teach you about thinking.

I dual majored in CS and History, concentrating on the path that Marco Polo supposedly took to China's the people and cultures there. The later has been far more helpful to me that the CS stuff, which was mostly theoretical bullshit.
So after VW's issue and now this, it makes me wonder--is diesel actually as attractive as some of these manufacturers had made it out to be? Or was that all inherent in this big con?
Bitcoin: $2000?
I'm not rejecting empirical findings that contradict the generational hypothesis. I simply don't believe anybody has actually done any rigorous measurements of object mortality in Go and how it compares to other languages. In the absence of such measurements, I'm going to speculate similar allocation patterns to C#, which has a very similar model and the generational hypothesis certainly does hold for it.

I'd be more than happy to discard my speculation if it happens to be wrong!
No, because Uber publishes all of the ride requests, regardless of fare. As long as there is one driver willing to go there, the ride gets fulfilled.

If you are leaving drivers to their own devices to try to find hot spots, they have no way to know someone ten blocks over needs a cab right now from a poorer area.
I think he meant a 5 year old without a PhD in mathematics.
I've a friend who teaches electrical engineering at K-State University. He says that a pretty good number of his students are merely trying to get a degree, not actually learn/understand it. The minimum required to pass is all they would know at their peak.
Also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14330913
> there is no such thing as "manual control" anymore

It's one thing to not have direct hydraulic or mechanical connections to the control surfaces. You can still have a direct wire from the controls in the cockpit to the actuators that move the control surfaces, with no computer intervention.

It's another thing to have no way to get the faulty computers out of the way and get that direct wire to the actuators.

> as systems get more complicated, and start to require faster than human response speeds

That might be the case for some systems, but it isn't the case for airliners. If it were, humans would not have been able to fly them before fly-by-wire controlled by computers came along.
Well, when you consider the average car price in the US was $33k in 2016, it doesn't seem that unreasonable.
> I view TDD as a workaround for a lack of a REPL.

Every manual test you do of your code in a REPL is literally a unit test screaming out at you that it wants to live in your suite.
locate is fast because there's a cron job that does the heavy lifting of scanning and indexing the filesystem. Without that, find is about as fast as PS.
Is there some sort of aggregator for these early crypto offerings? Still kicking myself for not participating in the Ethereum pre-sale after a friend linked it to me and I just wrote it off completely. Love me some gambling.
Portland.. the repo
"...frightening degree of efficiency." Sounds like they are good administrators at least.
That makes a lot more sense, I'm glad you pointed that out. I was getting to thinking the Norwegians had gone crazy and started trying to store seeds to hedge against the apocalypse.
The Fallacy of Endless Economic Growth
I believe in this approach, but making it usable is harder than it sounds. Once I tried watching myself program with this idea in mind. I realized I often start by typing methods which don't yet have a class, code fragments which don't yet belong to a function, even expressions which don't yet live in a statement and which refer to variables which not only don't yet exist but don't belong to any yet-existing class — maybe I'll pause half-way through writing the expression and start creating the class in another window.

So you pass through a lot of ill-defined states. For the IDE to keep up it would have to just represent explicitly "this is a code fragment which doesn't have a name", "this is a variable which isn't defined anywhere" and so forth.
That would involve

a) writing yourself an engine and that's actual work

b) that engine not being one which is used in real research

So "it depends" – for introductory teaching yes, for training researchers less so.
Like RSS? Sorry I couldn't tell if you were being snarky or not.

Google killed RSS when they killed Reader.
Google CEO Sundar Pichai responds to job application from 7-year-old
Shorter: free markets for me and my compensation, but not for you or yours.
Why was Kotlin mentioned at Google IO? But not Go nor Dart?

I mean Kotlin is the baby of JetBrains, the creator of the IDEA IDE that is used for Android Studio.
Hey, I'm all for people who like track racing, but you know, there's other people who like drag racing, and still others who like being able to floor it from a stoplight and beat that Maserati driver who's scared to even try because he'll make an embarrassingly-loud noise and lose.

Different strokes and all that. And for 2 of the 3 groups I just mentioned, 0-60 times are not like MegaPixels on digital cameras.

Enjoy your track racing!
Put another way, Americans subsidize 97% of the financing of assisted post-high-school education, regardless of profitability or how inefficiently such financing is structured.
May 20 1p PT live-stream writing CPU emulator on Usercorn to exploit a binary
Wow. Fantastic and deep analysis of what Aurora's doing at a deep technical level.

Not exactly light reading, but I feel I understand what the point of Aurora is now in a way that AWS's marketing collateral fails to communicate.
At my university (large state research school), professor salary was dependent on grants.

Professors get big grants? They get nice salaries.
> Or maybe with age you just lose the ability to handle that kind of stress.

Or as you age death becomes increasingly less abstract, especially for those fortune enough to have not experienced a situation that clearly illustrates mortality at a young age. A young fighter pilot probably has less to lose than a middle-aged parent so it's a lot easier to underestimate the risk.
Chelsea Manning is a she. Please do not misgender people.
> That might be the case for some systems, but it isn't the case for airliners.

Some planes like the U-2 are notoriously hard to fly, and spacecraft definitely require very fast reaction speeds.

> You can still have a direct wire from the controls in the cockpit to the actuators that move the control surfaces, with no computer intervention.

Not likely. You'll probably still need digital electronics to check that you aren't violating range of motion stops, or overtaxing the part or pushing it past its limits.

Then to move one wing or do some logical action, you're really twiddling a dozen or more wires at the same time, in just the right way. That requires a different control mechanism that basically mimics the flight computer, and it's not something that I think a human or even a pair of humans can do.

Now let's say you can wire everything up, and actually control it. That's so much wire which is a maintenance nightmare (just imagine if a few of these wires broke, and you didn't figure it out until you tried it). Not to mention the extreme weight of millions of long cable runs to the front of the aircraft.

> If it were, humans would not have been able to fly them before fly-by-wire controlled by computers came along.

I don't think airliners would be even close to where they are today without fly-by-wire. It's a game changing technology.
Average car or average new car?
Most people assume that's just a precaution to make it easier to move around the cabin and not a choking hazard!
COMPlus_JitDisasm lead me to this [1]. Thanks!

[1] https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/blob/master/Documentation/...
Yeah. I think that's what MiniHack does on iOS, but hell it's well worth it, it's the single best app I've used for HN!
That can all be worked out as part of his plea deal.
Not completely true. With the advent of ScanTron, Blackboard, online tests and quizzes, etc. much of the 'manual' work of teaching can be automated. Couple this with online classes, and one professor can run WAY more sections of a class than he could if he had to physically teach all of these classes. Even with in-person lectures and automated grading, labor productivity has increased dramatically in the last decade or two.
> there were plenty of times where his airplane did
> something unexpected and he lost control. But he always
> had some option for regaining it. (In the last extremity,
> he could eject [....])

But that's not really a lack of control. In those cases you're merely being challenged to regain control of the aircraft. You just need to fight harder, think smarter, or exit. In any event you still have control (or at least a sense of control) over your life.

I understand why this issue was so unnerving for the pilot. Heck, any passenger could sympathize: it's why flying can be so scary--total and complete lack of control; little to any knowledge about what's happening and why; you're completely at the mercy of somebody else, or nothing at all.

So, yeah, I get it. I was just thinking that of all sorts of pilots, a fighter pilot would be the last to be unnerved by losing control; unnerved to the point of not wanting to fly anymore. a) Fighter jets are super powerful and super sophisticated and when something goes wrong there may not even be any time to regain control no matter your training or experience; you're always flying at that envelope where the unexpected can and often does happen, so I just assumed you invariably accept that you're flipping a coin every time you take-off. b) I presume combat is one of those things where you either resolve yourself to a lack of control or realize you're not able to cope and move on to something else (if you can, and assuming you can move on emotionally). But I guess I shouldn't presume a modern fighter pilot (esp. from the 1980s) to have experienced the same sort of peril as someone on the ground during a war.

That said, I'm not trying to suggest he lost his mind or something. He responded appropriately in the moment. He was able to let his training and experience dictate his responses. He consciously understands that he was unnerved after the fact because of that lack of control, as opposed to not understanding those feelings and fears. I'm just surprised that those feelings (or at least their severity) were novel to him and changed his perception of flying, not that he was unnerved, per se.
> I was surprised, and not pleasantly, that this game doesn't use the same keybindings of the rogue/nethack tradition.

Strangely enough, this was one of my initial motivations for starting to hack on my own roguelike about twenty years ago.

I learned to play MacMoria and later Angband using the numeric keypad and never learned the Rogue keybindings. When I got my first laptop and it didn't have a full numeric keypad, it wasn't so easy to play Angband anymore. So I just started tinkering with my own game instead.

Yes, the keybindings for Hauberk are idiosyncratic (and not at all documented). I do like them, though. I've tried to make them ergonomic, at least for a user of a US English laptop keyboard.
I'm surprised how the board of directors can continually show their confidence in one of the most incompetent IBM CEO's in recent history.

I'm not a big fan of Ginni Rometty. She's been CEO for over 5 years.

But in her defense, what can she do??? She's been dealt a tough hand. Their legacy businesses are tapering off, their strategy of offshoring their consulting services isn't working, and their sizzle (such as Watson) doesn't amount to a hill of beans (to steal from Bogart) compared to the size of the company.

What should she have been doing to fix IBM's problems?
I'm staring down at you from your bookcase!
Please stop pumping little mini Ponzi ICO's. Please stop shoving new tokens to get rich under the guise of "anti-spam." Please stop trying to get rich on tokens. Storj and it's stupid token preceded this stupid token.

Blockchains are useful for an extremely limited set of circumstances. They enhance trust at extreme throughput and expense. If you can solve trust almost any other way, its better. disclaimer, I'm long as fuck bitcoin, however I know that it's still risky, and has a rather unaddressed lists of vulnerabilities in it's wiki, and has very limited use cases beyond emergent ponzi value.

That being said, creating a digital scarcity to act as functional proxy for human productivity, thus money, is hampered by every new shitcoin. Digital scarcity can be ruined for a couple decades, and every new shitcoin enhances that negative outcome. Utility before pump and dump please.
I see the issue of peoples' time being taken advantage of in the public sector, too, which I would argue is not necessarily capitalism. A good example is a teacher, or professor, or researcher--someone who is either salaried or paid for a set number of hours, but has expectations far outside a normal 40 hour work week. The larger government system dictates that person cannot be compensated more than a certain amount, yet that person could not hold their job if they only put in that set amount of time.
https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ships/shipid:48...
Install Debian SID and Gnome with Mini.iso (screenshots)
I just took a quick look at these communities: how exactly are /r/socialistprogramm and /r/anarcho_hackers furthering the well being of humanity? For what i see its all about fringe politics (meaning that they keep themselves busy)
I don't know how you consider token sales mainstream. I wrote a post explaining how difficult it is to participate in a token sale. www.arilewis.com/blog/2017/5/15/my-mom-cant-buy-an-ico

It's very plausible that there could be a bubble, but just to give some context, the cryptocurrency market is valued at $68 billion dollars. The Bloomberg US Internet Index went from $2.948 trillion at its peak to $1.193 trillion. We are nowhere those types of valuations.
That still presumes that the person who should be searching is aware that there are options to search for in the first place. If you assume that your only options are to either pay the amount you're billed monthly or default, it might not occur to you to try to solve your problem by searching Google.
(From article comments)

#include <stdio.h>

int
main(int argc, char **argv)
{
double i, s;
s = 0;
for (i = 1; i < 100000000; i++)
s += 1/i;
printf("Almost infinity is %g\n", s);
}

Lennarts-Computer% gcc -O3 inf.c -o inf
Lennarts-Computer% time ./inf
Almost infinity is 18.9979
1.585u 0.009s 0:01.62 97.5% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w

And now the Haskell code:

import BASIC
main = runBASIC' $ do
10 LET I =: 1
20 LET S =: 0
30 LET S =: S + 1/I
40 LET I =: I + 1
50 IF I <> 100000000 THEN 30
60 PRINT "Almost infinity is"
70 PRINT S
80 END

And running it:

Lennarts-Computer% ghc --make Main.hs
[4 of 4] Compiling Main ( Main.hs, Main.o )
Linking Main ...
Lennarts-Computer% ./Main
Almost infinity is
18.9979
CPU time: 1.57s

As you can see it's about the same time. In fact the assembly code for the loops look pretty much the same. Here's the Haskell one:

LBB1_1: ## _L4
movsd LCPI1_0, %xmm2
movapd %xmm1, %xmm3
addsd %xmm2, %xmm3
ucomisd LCPI1_1, %xmm3
divsd %xmm1, %xmm2
addsd %xmm2, %xmm0
movapd %xmm3, %xmm1
jne LBB1_1 ## _L4

---

OMG that is astonishing
State Department bans Courier New 12, except for treaties (2004)
I doubt that students:

1. Have money to buy a new car

2. Can buy a new car every year
Preact is brilliant. I use it instead of React for basically anything that I'm allowed to, for one single reason: it's Component class's "render()" method takes props and state as arguments! Testing becomes nicer, especially when porting an existing React component over, and I find it conceptually much cleaner.

Getting up and running with Preact, TypeScript (or Bublé[0]) and Rollup is pretty simple, and gives an extremely small and very fast bundle, which I just adore.

The big thing, is that by choosing the right tools, I can keep my `ls node_moduels | wc -l` small, and Rollup's tree-shaking takes that even further. With some forethought, one can achieve this with React, too, but I find Preact beautiful to use, and Hyperscript instead of JSX can be a boon for rapidly prototyping an idea for a component instead of setting up yet-another-js-build-system!

[0] https://buble.surge.sh/guide/

Edited to add: I've also used it successfully for some (unfortunately internal, I'd love to show you them) big production systems, where we had a team of 7 developers working on it at the end. Still in use now, and it was a breeze -- and runs extremely fast, UI-wise.
> On the gripping hand, it's also yet another bit to differentiate me from everyone else, and expecting polite and ethical behavior from advertising corporations probably really is doomed to failure.

Yeah, I considered bringing this up in my original post - DNT is garbage for a lot of reasons. One of the big ones being that it actually sucks for privacy, especially if it's not used a ton. It's one more thing that can make you trackable.
I agree. The title should be changed to "Uber to Levandowski".
Ah yes, the let's-euthanize-the-Jews-instead-of-keeping-them-in-ghettos approach.