skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I hope people learn the value of not being opinionated when it comes to building mind-share. I know, being opinionated works for Apple, and Apple is a fantastically valuable company. But I don't think it works well for everyone else. Git's being not-opinionated may be the thing that is best about it.
I for one enthusiastically agree with the author's advice to use the `#()` syntax in place of `partial` and/or `comp`. It's just plain easier to parse, even for those who are familiar with higher-order functions but especially for those that aren't.
Funding here came (in part) from O'Reilly, who strike me as in it for the longer haul.
Is it acceptable to ask an interviewer for a different question?

Generally, no. Not unless you want to look like a whiny stick-in-the-mud.
IIRC, it was the first open source project started by Microsoft / by a Microsoft employee.

As a German, I find the name super cringeworthy, but it makes me giggle every now and then.
If someone's train of thought is interrupted by the difference in code entry time between vim and a good IDE or code editor --which is milliseconds-- they have a real problem requiring medical attention.

Forget IDE's for a moment. Look at an editor like Atom. It's fantastic. You type "for" and it expands the for loop automatically for you and it understands languages. And, more importantly, you have to spend exactly zero minutes configuring that behavior.

Let professionals make great IDE's and tools. Focus on the real job in software development, which is not being a text entry machine.
Everything I've read and everyone I've talked to about it have told me that there's a perception of startups being perceived as crazy, crazy risky with real life implications (finding housing without a salaried job is supposedly difficult). And the money being available is primarily available to older, less risky-seeming business owners with safe business plans, not younger ones doing interesting things.

YMMV, though, as I've only read and discussed the topic and not experienced it myself.
The human mind is tuned to story. Stories help us make sense of facts and give them meaning. That's probably different from person to person - possibly you believe you're on the fact end of the spectrum.

This is a small part of the overall climate story, but it's actually what you're arguing for I think - it's a factual account of how glacier ice has changed in the park. The same has happened in the Juneau Icefields, Mount Rainier and elsewhere.

Stories are also a useful way to summarize the facts and can be misused to support things that are not factual - I understand that's what you're saying here.

I'm not aware of the story you allude to around accurate or inaccurate thermometers - the one you believe to be the truth.
Game engine maker Unity raises $400M in private equity from Silver Lake
InfoStream argued the broadcaster's refusal was "pretextual," one designed to garner favor from SiriusXM's preferred customers.

God forbid that a business should cater to its best customers. I mean, for shame and all that.

/s
That is a good question but have never tried it. However, there is nothing "special" about the assembly as ported by c2goasm, so it should equally well as any other (hand-crafted) assembly.
And here's the release note for that:
https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/Documentation/RelNote...

Thanks!
I don't understand, isn't that really encouraging, that peer review might work to weed out the truth after all?
I built something like this into my window manager one time, but I found it basically pointless, given how easy and flexible it is to just open the applications myself. If I did serious work on macOS instead of Linux and OpenBSD, I'd probably want a tool like this. They really should put a video or a screenshot roll right at the top of the page, instead of their stupid logo which nobody cares about.
I use meld as my git diff tool. Visual diff is just way easier in my opinion.
How does this compare to AWS Workspaces? https://aws.amazon.com/workspaces/
I'm looking forward to your post mortem.
Cool. I will keep an eye for it.
Looks interesting; I have a Hammerspoon script that does something similar.
New lawsuit accuses Uber of fare fraud
I replied to you an hour ago attempting to explain why I, a white man who works at Google, was also somewhat afraid. I made an effort to explain my feelings constructively while recognizing the existence of my privilege and the necessity of an outlet for people not like me to speak up.

The comment was flag-killed.

I can't speak for the other commenter, but I would never risk attaching this opinion to my real identity, and thus I'd never come to you IRL to discuss this.
Right, I'm not chalking it up to mysterious psychic powers. What I mean is, it's frustrating in how it demonstrates that our truth-sensing capabilities, and the "pure" scientific method, are actually working just fine and we don't need to have any existential panic over whether truth is unknowable even in noisy data. But those capabilities aren't being used when it comes time to actually write the paper, which is exactly when you should be applying them.
This is very interesting. Since the trackball worked well for me going back nearly twenty years I stopped looking for other solutions. I coded for 20 hours yesterday and I'm perfectly fine today.
The thing that's so frustrating to me--and many others, based on the comments--is how much of this gets pushed to management and product people.

Our team just acquired a product manager for the first time. And for the most part I absolutely adore her. She's really great at pacing things out to a timeline that works for us and pulling us out of our idea that a hacked up solution that you do in a couple of days isn't really a product. And she's very much pushing against putting those into production, all of which I agree with.

But she doesn't understand technology or needs. She's constantly having meetings where she pitches our manager on product ideas that don't even make sense compared to the client needs. Many of these are buzzword-based. But it makes me seem like an asshole where every team meeting, I have to be like, "No. That's not what the client asked for. The client asked for a solution to this problem x. The client (doesn't matter if it's internal or external) often doesn't know what the right solution is. Good product people and managers know that to get to a good place, the key is to get the client to describe the problem instead of the solution.

I'm not a product person. I don't know jack dick about products except for how to make them. But the level of miscommunication I see even in our small organization is astounding.

You get one manager, one product manager, and two stakeholders, and one engineer in a meeting together. It's absolutely unbelievable to me what management and product take away from those meetings.

It's so far from the reality of the problem to be solved that it sometimes makes me nuts. Like it has today.

I think that our whole way of doing things and our hierarchy is completely broken and backwards. You want to get something done? Put a software engineer in a room with an operations person who is on the ground. Talk about the problem. Propose a solution.

Take it to the management and let them sort out priorities among themselves. This bullshit about management being the first point of contact virtually guarantees that buzzword-based development is going to happen.

I know that we are supposed to be the sacred cows, and that we need to be protected. Fuck that, I say. Let me interact with the people on the ground whose problems I'm trying to solve. Don't put a non-technical product person who doesn't get any of the details right between me and the end-user. I'll take the time out of my day two days per week to go to the office and have meetings, and I do the rest at home where I can be productive and write code.

Sorry for the rant, but fuck all of this. We have a very broken system, in most cases.
That appears to be perfectly respectably business attire in the Bermudas: http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/lt/lt_cache/thumbnail/960...
This runs a thin line where orders of powers are in play, what has the most power in a certain realm and what conditions are to be followed or met. Are we arguing legality of Freedom of Speech or are we arguing order of power and rights to all irregardless of ownership and power structures?

If it is the former then yes, the law cannot arrest you for speech. If it is the latter, that is harder to ascertain, and I don't think (nor will I assume or paint a broad brush on these individuals) that people mean they want to force people to listen, but they want the same and equal opportunity to voice their opinion.

Having the opportunity is not the same as forcing, and I would never conflate these in my mind.

If we are arguing that America is the originating power structure and the servers are hosted in American soil, does that mean they must follow these bills to rights? Does the rights of those who claim ownership of the servers factor into the equation and do they have authority to govern whether someone should be capable of censorship? What about the network the opinion travels over? What about the country that the opinion comes from? What about...

Many of these cases renders down to ownership case, and Capitalism at times is at disagreement with rights, and in this case, capitalism is what allows these to propagate in a way due to monetary ownership of grounds where opinions are being voiced.

It's a very difficult conversation and road to navigate. It's not as simple as your statement renders.
Real-time data on global collaboration networks can support new research
People who believe that AGI is too far away to be concerned about should keep in mind that very few people, even AI enthusiasts and experts, predicted 5 years ago that we would have a human-pro-level Go playing program now.

Prior to 2015, no programs could compete evenly with any among hundreds of Go professionals. Two years later, even the human World Champion admits that his competency is far below that of a computer program.

"I am quite convinced by this loss that AlphaGo is really strong. From AlphaGo there are lots of things that are worthwhile learning and exploring." -- Ke Jie

The time to start working on and funding AI Safety research is now.

Note: I am not saying that AGI is imminent. The point is that we do NOT know when it will emerge and AI Safety research is very difficult and will likely take a long time to complete.
They are using React as a replacement for something like Jquery or Angular. If they kept it in house, they would slowly drift away from the rest of the development community. They only open sourced React in order to benefit from the work of other developers and prevent someone else from copying it and having those resources go into an incompatible de-facto fork.

They certainly didn't do it because they see a path from "Typical Facebook User" to "React User". They see typical Facebook users as consumers of services, incapable of understanding software in a deep way.

And they see them that way because they are supremacists. I don't think this assertion is overblown at all. I wish more programmers would just admit that they are supremacists, then we could get on with talking about whether that's a problem or not.
If you're looking to create your own community, I run a small tool called HelloBox

https://www.hellobox.co

We started as a "build your own HackerNews" then we transitioned it to a "build your community" tool. We've been going for about 3 years - a plenty of work to do and undergoing a pretty big re-design at the moment.
Man. Great reply.
At home we had 16 mb at that time on a PC Pentium clocked at 90 Mhz. This much RAM was insane at that time. I'm impressed Apple allowed for so much RAM.

I remember that some sticks would come out damaged so I used to test them with memtest86. I solved an issue where my PC would restart suddenly because of a bad stick.
It's kind of funny watching people who've never used one try to adjust to it. My kids grew up with them and wouldn't use anything else. They have them on their laptops too. I hate laptop touch pads, the single worst UI ever put on computers.
Social science isn't broken. Math and physics are like what's p-hacking.
I'm disagreeing that I don't believe it is a 'small' number of domains, only that they are domains you're not familiar with (or aware of.) Other than that though, yes, we agree.
It shouldn't be, though. It may be easy for a scientist to look at the method sections of two papers that had p<0.05 results and say of the first "that looks like a solid study with a reasonable conclusion and robust controls" and of the other "that's bogus".

The problem is that without this expert panel making these calls, both studies got published, were given the same credibility, and got consumed by non-experts. Peer review and the publishing process are supposed to weed out the obviously bad studies, but they're not doing so.
Malicious actors and users will be alerted in equal measure, but the typical Android phone owner will tend to do nothing in response to a new security paper, while malicious actors will tend to write exploit scripts.

That's the main concern going through my mind when I see this. It would be different if the average user was a business, a developer, a security professional - but this isn't Heartbleed and we're talking about normal people this time. Are they even going to read this, and if so, what can they do besides keep an eye on their permissions?
Ferrari 512TR vs. Porsche 911 Turbo – 1990s Battle
The linux codebase exists in stark contrast to your claim. Assuming your claim is that broken up repos is the better way.
Unless I catch myself breaking my own rule, I never second guess my developer's time estimate unless I think it's too short. I've been a developer (still am one even though I manage people now too), and I've learned that I can't factor in all the things going through that person's mind.

I have cleaned up too many messes because of negligence from people who do not understand how hard programming actually is. That's what most people, especially us developers at times, fail to recognize. That 5 minutes someone took to write an "easy" query against the CI and deployment server almost brought it down (true story, luckily I was monitoring it look at another issue).

The ability to write code is taken for granted, because anyone can learn it. Some programming is easy, and some is extremely difficult and the real trick is knowing which. What scares me most about the code being written are the one off queries, etc. The ones that will "only be used once" or "only for low transaction instances". That's never true, someone will always have it laying around for that time when "we just really needed to make that update".

An old boss of mine used to say "the perfect is the enemy of the good." This is true, there are a number of times you need get something up and running and worry about fixing it along the way. There are other times when that "good little app" got used in the wrong way and cost us hours of downtime because of a mistake due to rushing. Now the perfect solution doesn't look like it was such a bad choice after all. I can wait a day or so for a query that I could write in 5 minutes. In the long term, waiting a few extra hours isn't going to impact anything that much. I'd rather the developer be through then explain why no one went home that night because we had to clean up a mess.
School disciplinary incident ends with a Naperville teen's suicide
I've been on both sides and I understand both points of view. When my responsibility is managerial in nature, I'll tend to prioritize the dates and the ROI, then weigh the risks more optimistically because risk mitigation usually makes it harder to achieve what I am being judged on. However, when I'm the one actually doing the work... I tend to over-engineer (assuming "bullet-proof" is over-engineering for a circumstance), test, and the like. While I'm certainly rewarded for on-time deliveries, I have a professional interest in seeing a solid piece of work; and I tend to face more negative consequence if the work isn't of sufficient quality than I do if it's late.

What's hard is finding the right balance. The proverbial "SQL in 5 minutes" moment from the blog post may not fully appreciate the developer's job, but it can serve as a reality check to self-question if you're over-baking it.
How to Learn as a Developer
Peer review is supposed to be done before publishing, not in a separate meta-analysis.
ehm... Also the guy to guise opposition to net neutrality as just being fervently anti-colonisim
The first code comparison in that article compares Go error handling with doing a `catch Exception` in D. I don't find that a fair comparison; `catch Exception` for a block of code that can fail in different ways at different points is a bad practice.
What's going on with raising $11M if it's pretty clear you don't have product market fit?
United accidentally strands New Zealand man at SFO without wallet or passport
California ski resorts plan to keep slopes open this summer
There are actually ways in which science can come up with the wrong answer - for example if we lived much later, the universe would be expanding so rapidly that we could not see the stars around us - the night sky would be dark. We would wrongly conclude that nothing is out there.

Sadly, what people call science these days has nothing to do with the scientific method, it's just a bunch of idiots doing correlation and thinking it's causation.
This is a nice summary of fivethirtyeight's science crisis work, but (as with most treatments of the subject) it leaves me fundamentally unsatisfied.

Apparently we've identified the problem enough to say "there's a problem". We can say "look at all the ways you can manipulate this analysis to achieve the desired outcome". We can say "gosh, science is harder than we thought". But it seems we're still far from a convincing solution.

The fact that statistical analysis is so liable to manipulation seems to call the entire thing into question. In the article they take comfort from the fact that many of the labs analyzing the red card/race data arrived at similar conclusions. One would assume this is because they made similar choices in the analysis. But what says those were the right sorts of choices? Could it not simply be that the labs shared the same biases and errors, making that outcome more common? Is a proper analysis really determined by (essentially) democratic vote? If that's what we've arrived at, it gives me less rather than more confidence in the robustness of the scientific process.

It feels like something fundamental has to be reimagined. It's difficult to prove things about the world---but maybe it's actually near-impossible? Or maybe we need to get real about the cost of actually demonstrating anything reliably. Instead of individual labs running one-off experiments it becomes researchers collaborating openly to build the perfect experiments, which are then run by many different labs, then analyzed collectively in the open for strengths and weaknesses, then reformulated, sent out again, and so on iteratively until at the end of years of research one little bit of probably-truth drips out the bottom of the system.

But that bit would be something we could build on.
Based on the examples presented, it seems like the OP doesn't actually mean "higher-order functions" in general. The "good" example still uses map, which is a higher-order function. It seems like what OP has a problem with is specifically functions that return functions.
> "Evolution" no longer selects as aggressively against devs who are inefficient.

It still does - but now efficiency is measured in development/maintenance time.
>But rather, I believe the problem they were hinting at is that the current Haskell numeric hierarchy is insufficient to capture the patterns we want for the vast kinds of numerical computing we do today. But even then, the tools we need to design the hierarchy we do want are also a bit out of reach, and implementing them will take time.

I think part of this issue boils down to avoiding the laziness and immutability of the language. The "patterns we want for [...] numerical computing" not infrequently boil down to (a) build a matrix, (b) modify that matrix, (c) apply that matrix, or parts of that matrix, on vectors, (d) modify vectors, (e) partition matrices into submatrices to do work on, etc. Notice the "modify" part of so many of these.

These aren't really hard problems in imperative languages. The naive algorithm for Arnoldi iteration[0] is inherently iterative and really isn't that hard to write with ok performance in an imperative language... but try writing it naively in a functional language! So, tools and abstractions need to be built to make these kinds of algorithms more natural to write functionally without costing too much in performance. In other words: the tools and abstractions are only necessary because of the limitations of a language that leans so hard on the compiler for performance.

I think this is one of the underlying things that differentiate Haskell and other languages: In Haskell, abstractions can be absurdly reusable, allowing for really elegant code to do things... if you know what abstraction to use. If you don't, then things can get difficult to do. In imperative languages, abstractions can't quite reach the level of reusability that they can in Haskell... but you don't have to rely on the abstractions as much to solve the problems that you want to solve.

Think about the Arnoldi iteration. The iterative version in a number of languages is 10 lines, but the functional version needs some way of drilling down into an array in a mutable way (a monad) in order to make it match the iterative in performance...

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnoldi_iteration#The_Arnoldi_...
Yes, it is a custom format. The paths are "triangulated" on the CPU once and the resulting triangles are uploaded to the GPU for subsequent draw calls.
Qubes is Gnu+Linux, it's a fine choice but not the only one.
They share the same product name, but otherwise not really related?

One is for organising your local machine's desktops in workspaces per project, other is remote desktops via a cloud provider.
"Humiliate" in the same sense? Sure!

But it's always possible to claim your offense is real. Pushing is using real authority to moderate a person's own language. Interpretation is subjective.

HR is neither a nuanced or objective judge of semantics - they aren't even in the same ballpark as a direct response.
When I've had them, I liked doing them. Of course, I was usually in-between employers, so I had plenty of time on my hands and no reason to not give it a shot. I could see where it would be a problem if you aren't in that situation, and just looking for a new employer (and depending on your family/home life responsibilities as well). I like such projects (or on-site development tasks) over a whiteboard interview any day.
You can, you just have to prefix them with a hyphen, e.g.:

$ -gs
nice.. the OSS pairing stuff is great (solaar), now it will be better.. will continue to recommend logitech items to everyone I know..
Yep, this is the way I work. Always rebase against master, and fix conflicts there, so branches merging into master should always be up-to-date and have zero conflicts.
Tried it out works great! Opens sublime text and Hyper to the correct folder and open my site all at once. If it integrated with Magnet so you could set up exactly where it opens, that would be incredible. Also, the ability to run a command in Hyper when it loads would be cool, for example if you could 'npm start' automatically.
I'll definitely buy!

EDIT - actually if you could set it up to run some hotkeys or typing after each application load you could do both these things very easily.
Only one line of unsafe, and that's to call a C function. Nice.
LAPD officer spared time behind bars in South L.A. assault case caught on video
You're thinking of Facebook if I'm not mistaken.