skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I think it's probably not possible. Here's a way of thinking about why that may be: what we're doing when writing software has as much in common with doing science as it does with engineering. By 'science' I mean coming up with a formal description of how some physical system behaves. If we're willing to generalize this activity to include non-physical systems then, I'll argue, software development would be included as the same kind of thing.

Fundamentally writing software is about constructing a formal description of a less formal 'specification' of some abstract system. The architecture used in this formal description corresponds to what's ordinarily called theory in science; when we execute our formal description, it corresponds to performing an experiment, which may lead to the discovery of anomalies (i.e. bugs); sometimes this anomalies are significant enough that we are led to revise our theory (i.e. refactor); if our re-conceptualization is significant enough and we decide to use an entirely new architecture, you're running into something like a paradigm shift with all the resistance and other social factors this entails.

Coming up with architectures/theories to formally describe systems in the foregoing manner is not something we know how to make reliable. If that goal is clearly out of sight for science, why would we expect it to be achievable in the sibling discipline of software development?

The exception I see to this (which admittedly is a large exception) is that probably most programs which need to be written are very similar to programs that have been written before. If we had some unified process for evaluating architectures for these programs that we write over and over again, then we'll probably eventually stabilize on 'true' architecture for that class of program. We see this happening to some extent in the creation of 'frameworks,' but maybe we could come up with better measures for comparing the aptitude of competing frameworks?

It could also be that the physical systems described in science tend to be amenable to simpler description than typical software specs, which may be loaded with non-unifiable features. In this case, frameworks/theory only gets you so far because most of the work is just describing special cases...

Anyway, maybe the 'science' we need to found software engineering on top of would be a formalization of this general process of coming up with formal descriptions of either abstract or physical systems. I bet there are regularities there which could be exploited for systematization—and if nothing else, there are likely insights to be had just through seeing software development as a thing having significant relations to the practice of science.

Edit: phrasing, typos, etc.
UEFI? SBSA compliance?
Using various plugins: nerdtree for filebrowsing, gitgutter for git status notifiers, vim-go for code formatting and linting etc, supertab for tab completion, various syntax definitions, and a custom .vimrc built over years that I use with each of my workstations.
I wish her the best success, however I would not say that only the Kagame regime (which in some aspects is awesome and others terrible) is to be feared in the region. Most Western countries and China want to have their say in the politics of CAR/CDR/Burundi and they do not hesitate to use dirty tricks.
The title is a tiny bit misleading. Indeed all of those are JavaScript emulators, but not all of them were written in JS. At least one on the list (mupen64plus) is transpiled from C++ using the (amazing) emscripten.
For the Store and iCloud you do not need anything. For iMessage you need to generate a motherboard SN and other stuff, it is not so easy but doable with the right tutorial.
Ask HN: Digital paper money?
Is there any way we can use a debit card the same way we use paper money?
I can use paper money without having a bank account, but I feel like there is no way I can use a debit card without having a bank account.

Is there anyone here who feels that digital money and paper money should have the same benefits?

I don't like banks. I don't like how they multiply money out of nothing. I don't like how they operate.I don't want my money to be borrowed to others nor being invested in financial products I don't know.
I don't want to lose my money if they fail as a company while investing my money.

Is there anyone out there feeling like this? Have you found any solutions to this problem?

Edit: Debit card instead of credit card
> First you felt the need to off hand mention your (clearly undergraduate) degree in economics which had absolutely zero relevance to the discussion.

That was a different person.

>There is absolutely zero evidence of this. None of your arguments are based on evidence. The US just fined Volkswagen billions of dollars. The EU is ready to fine Google billions of dollars. Apple paid japan hundreds millions of dollars in fines. All the banks responsible for the financial crisis in America and the EU paid hundreds of billions

Precisely, EU, USA and China(ones that I know, there might be more) are the ones who can actually fight back from the pressure. Once they're able to pay enough politicians even more to coax them into bringing laws that help them further, we won't even have that(like that hasn't happened before).

Additionally, you need to consider if the fines are actually painful enough. Sure, sometimes it's enough to make them stop doing offences, but sometimes the companies are left with a net profit from illegal actions.

> Again you have no evidence of this. If smaller businesses were able to provide better services people would be using dedicated email providers, not gmail. They would be using flickr instead of google and apple photos.

Look up Linux. Whilst big companies did have a hand in making it, it's still driven a lot by the community. Compare how Linux performs against Windows(fast, no intentional backdoors, free, almost limitless customisability) and MacOS(no upgrades that make your completely fine hardware useless in 3-4 years after purchase).

I neither use flickr not google/apple photos so can't judge the discrepancy in quality. But I do a lot of messengers, text editors, email clients and so on, and they're completely fine. You need to consider that perhaps people are using them because they didn't bother to look up alternatives and just went with what the company offered them because "hey! it's 'free'! and it's right here."

You seem to be giving off some belligerent vibes, so I'm not going to argue much further, all I'm asking is that you consider that companies like Google, Apple, Microsoft and so on are not in the business of making people happy, but in the business of making money. And if that means the best path to that is to manipulate governments and try to control every aspect of people's lives for their own profit - they'll do it. If you break them apart you give them much less power to do that.
My experience running a hackintosh
Design a Game from Scratch Using Unreal Engine 4
>Apple doesn't control all the browsers on iOS or block any web apps.

There is only single browser engine on iOS. What you call browsers are only skins. Apple can do what ever they please. For example provide an ad blocker that is effective for all browsers.

So they can block an web app if they want to or are demanded to do.

>If you need a low level API, well thats when you need to follow the App Store rules.

Which was effectively point I was making. More over, you really need a legal entity to distribute anything on iOS and these rules are always subject to change whenever Apple finds in convenient for them.

>If you can get a product into Costco or Walmart you can make huge amounts of money.

Maybe you did not notice but I was not talking about making money.

I said that it is not possible to develop an app for iOS without risk of censoring.
For what it's worth, there's a lot of work to do on Japanese input methods. To a human it may be obvious that hawotogu should become 刃を研ぐ (sharpen a/the blade), and that one does not typically sharpen or hone a 歯 (tooth), 葉(leaf), 派(party/ingroup), or even 覇(~hegemony); but to a computer without topic-specific context, each of these is equally valid. One might be thankful that humans don't really say all that many different or interesting things, at least in this context.
It's actually unrelated with Connectix. Connectix is much older, and was killed a long time ago.

Virtual PC for Macs was a full-blown JIT though.
I feel like the problems you describe here (constantly changing requirements, minimal time for development, "hacking" code together) have less to do with agile methods and more with people-stuff.

I think agile methods can help a great deal in software development, especially breaking apart your projects into more discreet steps and supervising progress or giving the possibility for correcting course via sprints. Also using eXtreme programming tools like pair programming or code reviews to avoid having people slip into a frenzy of their individual domain / help keep obvious bugs out.

Having minimal time and changing requirements is just part of the game. And people "hacking" code together is just... well bad craftsmanship really
I've looked into Coq and like a lot of others here tried to learn the theory and application but it is so far removed from my daily work that the benefits are basically non-existent. I've gotten way more mileage out of trying to learn systems theory and cybernetics than anything related to dependent types.

People think this is a tool problem but it's not. Well, the tools kinda suck but fundamentally it comes down to culture and mind share. My background is in pure math but my programming knowledge is steeped in the hacker tradition. It is very hard to overcome all that momentum.

There is no killer application for verified programming. Whatever you can do in Coq in 10 weeks you can do in C in 2 weeks with a few extra buffer overflows. We'd be further ahead if there were more tools for validating C code than trying to rewrite the world with dependent types.
> How is google even a monopoly? Bing exists, yahoo still exists. In Asia Google isn't even the most popular search engine.

Not a monopoly is not a high enough bar. They are dominant in search, browser, and mobile.

> Try using evidence

Evidence like using their position in search to shove Chrome in our faces, then using that position to help shove DRM on us.

Evidence like their ridiculous plans with the ad blocker?
> Meanwhile the civilised world has regulated taxi systems that work

There isn't a one-size-fits-all solution. In London, or example, the best taxi drivers are going to be better than the best Uber or Lyft drivers. It's a difficult city to navigate. When I'm there, I'm not even going to consider using Lyft.

Most American cities are much easier to get around in and there I think the lower barriers to entry make sense. When ride hailing services came to Sarasota, Florida, the taxi companies complained and the city did something interesting. Rather than try to regulate the new companies, they dropped regulations on the old companies with the idea that if they find regulations are needed, they will bring them back. It's several years into this experiment and so far it's working well. I think more cities should try a similar experiment.

Mostly, I think the market does pretty well in the hire-a-ride business.

I was in Las Vegas all week and we used both Lyft and taxi cabs. The Lyft rides were the clear winner in every respect. The Lyft cars were newer and cleaner and the drivers were friendly and offered us water and other things. The taxis were older, more run down, and the drivers were aggressive and not very friendly.

In London, professional drivers win on their efficiency and expertise.
That is similar to the plot point of one of those Star Wars prequels if I recall right
Carnegie wasn't involved in Standard Oil that was John D. Rockefeller's company.
> his is easily the version of Batman least representative of Bob Kane and Bill Finger's original vision

Why would this matter if you liked his show?

There is no point at which Disney's Cinderella wears a royal cloak of kingfisher feathers to the Spring Festival either, or even a scene in which she calls all the birds under heaven to gouge out her stepsisters' eyes.
Or you could see a bunch more smaller companies that still make acquisitions, and a whole lot of smaller IPOs that return a decent profit.
The thing is, there's a lot of us who don't want to join the 1% in the valley. We don't want to join these parasitic companies which are turning the industry into a boring clone-the-other-big-co greedfest.

So for a lot of us, just work hard and join the crowd isn't really a solution. Not to mention, if you find Trump a true threat, please realize he is a threat made possible through the echo chambers of SV tech, which is either so incompetent as to not anticipate it or too greedy to stop it.
(Deleting this, guess I'm wrong.)
Most restaurants fail and we don't bail them out.

I think the big banks are a special case because letting them fail may be more expensive than bailing them out.
A pattern I notice on this site, and reddit: that it's far easier to ask left-and-right for evidence than it is producing your own or going on a limb to make a point in your own words. Is open discussion discouraged on HN?

Now, I don't provide a lot of hard evidence on HN, if only because this probably isn't the right type of forum for a courtroom. I like to keep it a bit more casual.
Convention most of the time doesn't reduce boilerplate at all while it increases exponentially the headaches for anyone reading the code.
A typical example is using the awful Prism way to display a view in a WPF application.
For some reason completely alien to me the people at Microsoft practices, or whatever it was called at the time, explicitly suggested to use the IOC container directly (or with a kind of service locator) to create a view that automatically will try to load a view model with the same name if it existed, without throwing any error if it wasn't found.
This is the worst possible suggestion ever.
It is much easier and much more readable to just get your view model as a parameter in your main viewmodel, the IoC container will create it for you, you assign it to a public property and the view defined in a template is automatically shown in a content presenter.
This is extremely easy, much easier to do than to explain, there is no whatsoever connection to the container, if the viewmodel is not found you receive a runtime error, the view model has no relation at all with the view, it can be called whatever you like and the view has an explicit connection with the viewmodel.
So in this case the removal of convention based loading not only makes everything explicit, but also removes all the boilerplate needed to get a view from the container.
I don't particularly like ROR exactly for the same reason for which I don't like this convention driven way just explained.
And as you can see removing conventions and using different techniques can actually reduce the boilerplate if done properly.
Yikes- I have only a little sympathy for the taxi industry, but it is very scary that you do not believe we should be concerned with whether market forces improve society or not.

Pretty much any actual customers of ride-sharing services such as Uber and Lyft have already answered that question adequately for themselves. No one else's opinion -- not yours, not mine, and damned sure not the taxi cartel's -- is of any importance.

That doesn't mean there aren't risks, of course, especially for those who think the cheap rides are going to last forever. If government has a legitimate role here, it will come into play when the VCs get tired of subsidizing said Uber and Lyft customers. The taxi medallion business may be dead, but it won't be buried for good until the ride-sharing industry is genuinely self-sustaining.
Be fair, we're no longer living in the 60's, and as we all know the impetus to reach "the stars" was driven by as much as national pride as well as show of force and muscle flexing to the rest of the world. I concur that the state has been massively important in terms of research and investment from the 50's to the 90's that enabled most of what we're enjoying today, but if the past 10-20 years are anything to go by, the paradigm has shifted from state driven innovation to private driven innovation.
Bam! You hit the nail right on the head. Now when its just a freelance customer its not as stressful, what is really horrid is when you have a product manager getting paid big bucks who has absolutely no clue how things work and no interest to find out, he has just one demand, "never tell me anything i ask for is impossible", that's a hard demand when he refuses to actually learn anything about technology or the web.
No, just my phone. But I didn't know about that alternative. Thanks, I'll check it out!
Good point. We changed the title above to the article's subtitle.

The submitted title was "How to Visit Tsukiji Fish Market in Tokyo Before It Closes". Submitters: please don't rewrite titles unless they are misleading or linkbait (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). Rewriting to be more misleading is particularly bad.
From a quick glance, the example doesn't quite learn regular grammars - rather, it reduces them to finite grammars (e.g. the finite grammar of all US presidential winners and losers) and learns (or, more accurately, invents) a regular expression for them.

Finite grammar induction from positive examples only is feasible in polynomial time, so Peter Norvig's notebook will not cause the fabric of the space-time continuum to be torn asunder, I am sure.
HUD Housing Help Associated with Lower Uninsurance Rates and Unmet Medical Need
> A company with monopoly power would be able to raise the price of its service to the price the market can bear.

The 30% share Google takes from sales of Android applications is completely arbitrary and they could probably even increase it further without suffering any consequences beyond negative PR.
I see a difference when the language doesn't provide mechanisms to enforce program integrity.

With a type safe language, being used alongside isolation mechanisms, I get two layers of protection, at language level and at the sandbox level.

Like Android or ChromeOS do with their managed environments + Linux SE and on Samsung's case Knox.

If the language is unsafe, everything outside the jail might be safe, but the program integrity or the data inside of the container are exposed to the attackers.
Show HN: Free Logos for Startups
That's what is really pissing me off... It seems like a laughable security measure but it seems like I'm basically forced to comply with it if I want to use the modern internet.
This is a misreading of the law. And plainly not the way that a lot of large companies behave.

See http://www.corporatepolicy.org/2012/03/25/are-corporations-r... for instance.
TFA specifically mentions SSE, AVX, TSX, and SGX. All of those have had new features added in the last year or two.
The master player in one type I was talking about is someone like MJ. He pushed the expectation so high in both quantity (from data's point of view) and quality (all those master level moves only rooted from unreal fundamentals). There is basically zero chance to have someone better than him in the short and mid run. And the league had to change how the game is played to create space to expect another master player in another type. In this process, before the true master player emerges and matures, there is also some time for the fans to speculate who will be the master in each generation of players till that final one arrives. In short, better versions of a certain type of heroes keep coming and attracting more fans and pushing the expectation higher. It somewhat resets the product and let the new dynamics evolve so that it keeps the cashflow flow in strongly and can last for quite some time.

Of course, just my observation.

edit: added the product and dynamics analogy and corrected grammar.
Take a 60 foot 1.95 factor fall and get back to me.
I agree that 15 minutes is enough to get a sense of the candidate approach.
While I don't think only one question and its solution give enough information about a candidate, not solving this quickly is a bad sign (for a senior front-end dev).

My approach to interviewees is no panacea but I try to start low and build up in complexity from there by playing on their strength and finding where that brings the both of you (hopefully to their upper limit). It means a bit of preparation before hands based on their resume or a prior phone interview.

Some interviewees just slice through whatever you give them and others are in an uphill battle.
To somehow answer you question about being able to infer if a candidate can solve a problem in a given amount of time, I believe the only way to know is to give them that time. A bit of help here and there can help move on to a different question and I've yet to see someone properly 'fake' understanding code (ie. they say they understand but not really).

I also believe that it's only by knowing what candidates are able to do and what their current limits are that I can make a good hiring decision. This is very hard to do and I often get it wrong.
Comparatively, it's easy to find what a candidate can't do but it does not help you much deciding who to hire.

If a candidate fails all questions, either the questions are inadequate/wrong or they are a fraud.
Ask HN: What's your net worth?
Also

- how old are you?

- what do/did you do?

- where are you from?
To some extent, they have. The big breakthrough was "auto" in C++. (I wanted to call it "let", but that involved introducing a new keyword.) The type of a local variable in C++ is quite verbose for iterators. This discouraged the use of iterators in FOR statements. With "auto", you can write

for (auto p = thing.begin(); p != thing.end(); p++) { ... }

for anything that uses an iterator. No need to write out the whole iterator declaration for p. Or to generate it in a template. Suddenly, iterators became far easier to use.

Since then, Go and Rust have taken a similar approach of limited type inference. There seems to be a developing consensus that function parameters should have explicitly declared types, but within a function, type information should be inferred when possible.

We're seeing convergence from the other direction, with Python and Javascript (via add-ons such as TypeScript) acquiring type declarations.

So the two are meeting.
Oh, I take that into account. There's only so much time/effort I can put into HN comments! But there is a lot more to consider besides what I wrote.

> Congrats on your degree in econ.

Thanks.