skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Actually, that is only one type of fractals. Perfectly self similar patterns like the Triforce or Sierpensky triangle are used as toy models for learning . Typically, fractals in nature are not self similar(Branching of your blood vessels for example) . Mandelbrot developed fractal geometry as a way to model nature that captures roughness. It was kind of a rebellion against calculus, where if you zoom in eventually you get smoothness.
It's funny that many people think that only self similar patterns are fractals when his desire was to get away from idealized models towards more pragmatic ones

EDIT: I'm actually just learning about fractals, so I'm certainly no expert, but I'm excited to share what I've learned so far.

Look at a line, square, and cube in 1, 2, and 3 dimensions respectively. If you scale down each by 1/2 in all its dimensions, you need to look at how much of the "mass" (for lack of a better term is scaled down

If you cut a line in 1/2, it's mass is scaled by 1/2 as it takes 2 one-half length lines to make the original line.

If you scale a square down 1/2 along all its dimensions, you break into/scale it down into 4 smaller squares, it's mass scaling factor is 1/4....scaling a cube down 1/2 along all its dimensions (1/2)^2 breaks it into 8 smaller cubes...it's scaling factor is 1/8 and you can see the progression here. (1/2)^3. (I imagine a tesseract/hypercube has a scaling of 1/16 as it is the 4D analogue of a cube) The exponent represents the concept of dimension and this is how you can have non-integer dimensions.

So, back to the Sierpenski triangle or triforce example. Let's scale it down 1/2. When we do that, we know we get 1/3 the "mass" of the original since there are 3 triangles contained in the larger triangle at each level. The dimensionality is then (1/2)^x = 1/3 where x is the dimensionality. We rewrite this as log 3 base 2 which gives it a dimensionality of ~1.585.

And that is the definition of a fractal, a shape with a non-integer dimension which gives the shape roughness at every scale. I don't quite understand the more technical definition, but hopefully this helps!

Note, you cannot use length or area as a measurment for a scaling factor, as the length would be infinite and area would be 0. Also, I say mass because the more correct concept is difficult for me to explain without a whiteboard, but basically, it has to do with putting the fractal on a 2d grid, scaling it, and seeing what the ratio of boxes touched is. See, told you I'm bad at explaining it :D
The Homotopy Type Theory folks are way ahead of you on that one.
Sure preventing logical errors is hard, but it is already an improvement that typical C errors aren't possible.

Limbo does not support this, but both Java and .NET allow for security control at class and method level, however they tend to be misunderstood by most developers, which don't regularly use such features.
> their warning could backfire if it gives Microsoft one more reason to finally walk away from x86 compatibility

Emulation is an important part of walking away, no? Microsoft cares about backwards compatibility above anything else.
just did in incognito and saw an uber ad but no lyft one
You're right it does come down to culture and mind share. That's why the author already admits this would be a long process. But I think he's right and to truly call what we're doing software _engineering_ there needs to be a more formal basis for how to do things and especially to discern between this is right and this is wrong.

No offense to you, but often times people that entered programming originally from related fields and taught it themselves give me the hardest time working with them. Like, no it's not enough that the software now provides this feature but you copied 1.200 lines of code for it and just squeezed in your if-branches and for-loops somewhere. Your job as software developer is to think how you can wed these new requirements with our existing codebase for others to build upon.

Sorry, but as a bit of a pedantic and clean code enthusiast this is kind of a passion topic for me :)
Is this satire? There is so much utility in having a (relational) database that comparing it to S3, on the pretense cost savings, is ludicrous.
While Google monetizes its core web properties such as google, gmail, and youtube via a closed advertising system. That doesn't mean the worth of the company is held in AdWords. If Google decided to shutter AdWords and use a third party the third party would still need to pay billions per year for exclusivity.

However, Google does leverage their ad business into non-google properties via vertical integration eg. I can buy ads on CNN via AdWords but I can't buy ads on Google search from DataXu or other DSPs.
> [..] since the elites outspend all of them combined on politicians [..]

"[the illusion of]"Democracy", "Organized religions", "history of our society", esp. the last 300 years or so", 3 of the most profitable lies in todays day and age. Its wrong to say that this "happens to be happening because A, B .. Z", this is "works-as-designed". A world viewed from the top has no nations, only powerful blood-lines, it has not morals only self interest, it has no humanity only contempt of the
"human animals" they have inherited and extended control over. It's them, a new species, and us, the soon-to-be transformed, stripped of everything that could challenge them, rest of the world.
b = sum((j if j % 2 else 0) for (j, k) in results if k)

This definitely is borderline unreadable but that isn't necessarily because it does a lot of things. It is because it does a lot of things without order and with a lot of line noise. Compare it with

sum [j | (j, True) <- results, odd j]

or

filter snd >>> map fst >>> filter odd >>> sum

The bigger problem is that this carries a bool around. If it is only used for filtering filter it beforehand.

The Opportunity for correction is an interesting idea but the authors issue mostly come from a lack of referential transparency. In a pure language refactoring wouldn't be an issue so one could argue this is a symptom of too little abstraction, not too much.
I'm sorry but I laughed. Amazon and Google are doing things today as we speak that are as sordid as anything Microsoft has done. The warehouse conditions and pressure cooker culture at Amazon have been repeatedly reported to be appalling and Google's planned Chrome ad blocker and compensation scheme is outright abuse of their dominance in search and ads.
If you write software that needs discrete math, like probabilistic stuff or graphs, it will need discrete math. If you write software that is meant to simulate, like maybe even simulate real bridges, or video games, or generative art, non-photorealistic rendering, ... it will involve some of the math that helps model the physical world. It makes more sense to just learn a lot of things and apply the union of that to software, even ideas surrounding managing complexity in architecture (Notes on the Synthesis of Form?) and so on and expose that through oneself to "software" as a new universe where creations can exist; than to quibble about what's more important and what's not in a prescriptive way about what others want to and don't want to do. Of course, I'm doing the latter here. :) Such is the cycle.
Who is this 'they' you speak of? I for one enjoy living in a country with roads, power, drinkable water, no guns, free healthcare and the reasonable expectation that everything will cost roughly the same tomorrow as it did today.

Unless you live off the grid, grow your own food, generate your own power and make your own clothes from thread you spun from the sheep you sheared yourself then you are a beneficiary of taxes.
Can't wait to see some of these ported to WebAssembly.
>The people writing parsers are the ones who need a language specification to decide what to parse,

If an old 1970s mainframe is spitting out "broken" csv files that you need to parse, a new 2005 csv formal specification trying to impose some sanity to the landscape is irrelevant. That short RFC4180 tries to constrain what is "correct". It can't enumerate all the ways csv files are "incorrect".[1] The programmer has to look at the actual bad csv files he's trying to parse. As of today, Citi bank still exports broken csv for credit-card transactions. (Citi inserts extra CRLF in between quotes which breaks MS Excel csv import.) I don't need a formal spec telling me how it's broken. It's quite obvious by simply viewing it in Notepad.

>Meanwhile, writing CSV docs is just a for loop with a printf. That's it.

No. For example, if the field has a movie title with embedded quotes[2] or maybe a measurement using a one double quote for inches (e.g. [Sony 4k TV 65"])[3], using a naïve printf loop without generating extra escape characters will break many csv parsers that try to conform to RFC4180.

[1] although someone did try to enumerate bad csv files: https://donatstudios.com/Falsehoods-Programmers-Believe-Abou...

[2] example movie title [Precious: Based on the Novel "Push" by Sapphire] :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precious_(film)

[3] https://stackoverflow.com/questions/17808511/properly-escape...
So GTFO of Silicon Valley then? The place is feeding on itself at this point IMO and I'm just about ready to leave myself because happiness > $$$$$$$ past a point. See also my libertarian friends who live in SF, constantly kvetching about the politics, but who all refuse to live somewhere else.

Meanwhile, Austin's nice and it's still affordable on a moderate six-figure income. Not to mention the relatively undiscovered gem of Portland and its fantastic food truck culture. Then there's the option of going abroad. It's a big world out there. Don't limit your options.

Overall point: don't fight the herd, you will lose, go start your own instead.

Finally, I don't blame Facebook or Google for Trump in any way whatsoever. I blame the overarching intellectual incuriosity of most of the American people for that one, independent of party affiliation.

Biased evidence: I grew up denied access to advanced math and science courses because I was pegged as someone with ADHD and potentially mildly retarded by the same sort of idiots who elected Emperor Orange. This was because I displayed near OCD w/r to writing code from the age of 6 and little interest in anything not relevant to that task.

That inclination was discouraged by my school system all the way to college whereupon it suddenly became useful and the rest is profitable history.
I don't think Intel wants to waste resources (and get bad PR) if it isn't a significant threat to their bottom line. Microsoft saying they are going to emulate x86 on ARM with low overhead (and thus making it possible to switch to ARM and still use tons of legacy software) is a much bigger danger to them.
I don't think the city stopped honoring anything or changed any rules. The medallion buyers were just speculating and didn't see the future well. No different from people who buy property for retirement then there's a recession and the surrounding population declines and it becomes worthless. Investment is gambling. Everyone knows that. You're supposed to diversify. Humble wage earners don't have that problem. Drivers who rent medallions don't have that problem. Only the risk taking ones who took loans for something that might lose value do.
Years ago, I spoke with an attorney with a CS background. He had once worked on a case like this. Sharp guy. He didn't tell me the parties involved, and I didn't ask, though I assume he wouldn't speak openly about it while it was ongoing. I therefore don't know how it turned out. It was many years ago, so I might be remembering wrong. I'm not a lawyer, this is not legal advice (neither mine nor his).

Basically, there are two approaches the plaintiff might take here. The simplest is to cite the doctrine of equivalents[1]. This is basically the notion that if you do the same thing in the same way for the same purpose, then it's the same process, even though you are using digital instructions instead of logic gates. The legal theory here is pretty well settled. The problem is that you'd need to justify that digital instructions are obviously equivalent to logic gates, and a skilled professional would have equated them at the time of the patent's filing.

The other approach is to argue that an emulator actually is a processor, and therefore fits the literal claims of the patent. The explanation for this is pretty well-established: it's literally the Church-Turing Thesis[2]. However, the viability of this argument depends on the language of the patent claims. Also, it's hard enough to explain the C-T Thesis to CS students. My undergrad had an entire 1-credit-equivalent course that basically just covered this and the decidability problem. Explaining it to a judge, who (while likely highly intelligent) probably has no CS background, over the course of litigation is likely to be really hard.

Now, Intel certainly has enough resources to do both of these things (and they may also have precedent to cite, that didn't exist back then or that wasn't relevant to that case). Don't take this as an opinion on any possible result, it's just information such as I remember it.

[1]- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_equivalents
[2]- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church%E2%80%93Turing_thesis
I'm not an expert and I'm really willing to learn from others in case you know more.

Could you please elaborate more in the matter?

As far as I know, they give credits to people and they invest money to earn more money. That's how banks make money and become profitable. And for what I know they can even operate with more money than they really have.

By the way government just guarantees a certain amount of money, in countries like Spain it's just 100K$/account. In other countries like Portugal I believe it's 30K$/account.

EDIT: Responding to the government protection fact.
Vermont house for sale straddles two countries
And industrial fall arrest literature disagrees with the UIAA. A 4kN loading will break your spine in the correct orientation.
Looking for an open source project which needs some documentation
Hi everyone, I'm finishing up a certification as a technical writer and need to create a piece of technical documentation as a requirement. I am looking for an open source project which still needs some documentation to explain installation / features / new features / updates to users. Specifically, I am interested in creating online html help.
He was descriptive and prescriptive. His descriptive narrative was prescient.
Around 200€.

If you ask me, it feels bad not being able to afford some basic stuff but then it is also super rewarding when you make some money. I am in my last year of my university degree but don't live at home, and my income comes from side projects and some programming jobs I do for others. (I don't pay for university, otherwise nothing would be viable).
When you build a bridge, a power station, or a wind turbine, you're creating something of known economic value for several decades, even centuries. The whole process is expected to have little to no business deliverables for years. That lends physical engineering nicely to an established set of standards. In software, we're often innovating entirely new products, and people want to see working proofs of concept, and see organic growth with the user base without getting locked in to preexisting concepts of what the product should do the business figures out what the market is.

The nexus in products like vehicular and medical equipment software might be a good place to start implementing something like a discipline, but those systems are so much more singular and simplistic in their product function (not the implementation, I realize) than what the average software dev is working on that I don't even know how much downstream influence it would have.
Java was a lot more concerned with being consistent with C, but in Java where a boolean is called for you have to actually supply a boolean.

It's one of those rare features that I wish other languages would adopt from Java. Possibly the only one. :/
Counting is one thing and I'm not sure whether this is possible to do or not (my understanding is that it's "not"), but the example in the original article is specifically trying to learn to reproduce strings of exactly n a's followed by exactly n b's, for arbitrary positive n.

That's learning the CFG a^nb^n for n > 0 in a nutshell and is therefore impossible to learn, and indeed the LSTM in the article falters after test-time n exceeds training-time n by a few units.

The paper you link to discusses subject matter I'm not familiar with (bootsrapping as in psychology, say) so I'm not really qualified to opine on it. However, from a very quick look it seems like they're learning to associate counting words with numbers- sorry if I'm wrong about that. Still, that's not "learning to count", where you have to be able to make the inductive leap that n + 1 > n, for all n in your target set of numbers in addition to learning the recursive structure of number strings.

Finally, from the little I've seen of attempts to model counting with machine learning, there hasn't yet been much success, probably because it's impossible to learn a language with both structure and meaning from examples only of its structure and no access to their meaning.
Spoken Japanese isn't any more ambiguous than English (for a human, or a speech-to-text AI) because Japanese people pause between spoken words just like anyone else.

But a stream of romaji furigana with no spaces is quite ambiguous—since there's nothing to indicate word boundaries, any substring of the input might turn out to have actually intended to be e.g. a katakana spelling of a name.

If CJK IMEs expected and required people to hit the spacebar between the "words" (lexer tokens) of the provided input for matching, they'd have a much simpler job. But as it is, they fall over quite badly when you type multiple words into the IME input box, and are mostly only usable if you resolve single words at a time (which, sadly, throws away a lot of the inter-word context that would otherwise be available for matching.)
Oh well. I should have known.

It's funny because while I'm typing this I'm watching the WWDC keynote recording and I just saw them announce the "new configuration" of the MacBook Pro.
Ugc: a single-header garbage collector library
No timey wimey?
Is there anything you can recall doing that would encourage or discourage chess stuff from popping into your head like that? Do you think it came out of intentionally replaying games on your head and then became more automatic? Or did it just randomly start to happen on its own?

This kind of automatic mental practice seems like an awesome skill to develop for any field of study. It's a way to practice and learn without using up any willpower.

I play guitar and sometimes I do find myself doing solfege exercises and visualizing fretboard patterns when I'm falling asleep/sitting in traffic/whatever. I'd love to be able to do that more.
The first Alchemy, DOS:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3NFBaYNhXo

I also made one back then in Flash (called "Alxemy"), it got quite popular.
For one, we've lost these services to capitalism, because it's difficult for any alternative to operate in a capitalistic society. How many are going to work on the open source alternative and still make enough to live comfortably? Decentralized services are difficult to design to be usable and operate reliably. We can't underestimate the amount of resources that goes into software development.

Which is why I appreciate when a startup like WhatsApp spent so much effort on end-to-end encryption with little to no financial incentive..
"Because of that, people thought you should write software the way you build a bridge or a car."

The reason people think that is because they have no idea how the engineering to build a bridge or a car is done.

Note, the term is Software ENGINEERING not Software Assembly or Software Construction. The engineering work necessary to design a bridge or car is actually not TOO dissimilar to designing anything else. You have requirements (often vague, conflicting and changing) and constraints and you have to trade things off against each other to come up with a workable design solution.

The construction is just the compilation. Or perhaps the final coding/debugging. Or a combination. In construction, tiny engineering issues are often resolved by the construction crew at the site. Sometimes with input from engineers, sometimes not.

The problem is that building software merges the engineering (design/architecture) with the construction (coding/debugging/compiling/installation) that requires a rather broad range of skills. Most people working on small teams have to jump back and forth between the big picture (more engineeringy) to the small details (more constructiony) and back.

Finally, software development is no longer a new thing. People have been doing it for a half century. There are many people in the field today who's parents wrote software. And a few who's grandparents did it. It's high time we stop trying to draw analogies to building bridges or designing cars. Software Engineering is its own discipline with its own unique challenges and dynamics. Better to just take it for what it is.
The point is, it's not a trade-off between employees' job satisfaction and 'committing a crime'. These are not two sides of the same or even related issues. You don't keep employees happy because they might burn the place down if you don't and and someone's departure from a job is not a reason for them to commit a crime. Equating these things is silly.
> That most people around me are subsidizing their lives (free storage, free email, 2-day shipping, easy home automation, etc) in exchange for their privacy and independence doesn't really factor into my own decision.

This is exactly what I am thinking and doing all the time. I have one problem however, that is, convincing my friends. How do I do this? Any idea?
I don't know about "topic-specific context", but doesn't a word-granular Hidden Markov Model trained on huge amounts of text from the language let you figure out things like "given that the sentence includes 刃, 研 is the highest-scoring match"?
While I totally agree with you on the 'it's not engineering in the engineering kind of sense'-part, there's another interesting point a friend once brought up in conversation:

At least where I'm from, telling people what I do, I often get labeled as a 'computer person'. You know, kind of estranged from the real world and not good for anything practical (and mind you, after college I shed a lot of my admittedly nerdy past). Coining the term 'software engineer', with the word 'engineer' being something people can relate to and see it as a respectable profession, I think can help a bit in conveying that yes, what we do is a real and important job and no, we are not all geeks that totally like to be in their dark basements all day.
An earlier discussion here had most people guessing it was Apple, not Microsoft, that Intel was lobbing the threat at.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14518189
Data selling from big tech companies is the least of your worries tbh. It's all presented in aggregate form and protected very well. It isn't even really data selling, although if you want to argue semantics and model it as such, it would be data selling limited in scope in that the only action an advertiser can use the data for is presenting you with an ad.

It's the financial industry that you have to worry about. The finance industry has atrocious security and access to very personal information on you. Finance companies (your bank, credit card, etc.) sell your information to the highest bargainer with much higher privileges (physical mail and junk emails) and don't allow you to opt out.

Edit: And also the health care industry. Super personal information with archaic tech and paper thin security. Data might not be sold but the risk of bad parties gaining access to your information is high.
Free Introduction to Server Rendered Vue.js Apps with Nuxt
Functional Programming is a Lie